MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on November 22, 2014, 05:45:53 PM
-
Has anyone taken course from this professor?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/22/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=latestnews
-
This will end poorly.
-
Has anyone taken course from this professor?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/22/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=latestnews
So use a lying student as a way to attack an institution who doesn't "toe the line" that Fox News has set?
And this: At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”
How about an article about uneducated, self-entitled students that have no qualms about lying to make a political point?
-
So use a lying student and a lying news(?) organization to make a point?
But if it was the asylum members at huffpo it would be believable.
-
So what's next? Creationists will waste a Biology class's time on debating the teachings of the bible? Talk about a waste of time. China doesn't have this problem and look where they are going.
-
Didn't occur during class time so nothing wasted. What happened to open discussions and exchange of ideas?
New Liberal philosophy is to negate those who disagree and not debate. Didn't think that was the Jesuit way to denigrate dissenting opinions.
-
Rough day for marquette. Beat by a division 2 team then this on a national news outlet. Egh...
-
Didn't occur during class time so nothing wasted. What happened to open discussions and exchange of ideas?
New Liberal philosophy is to negate those who disagree and not debate. Didn't think that was the Jesuit way to denigrate dissenting opinions.
I didn't think it was the Jesuit way to subjugate a group of people based on their sexuality.
-
Rough day for marquette. Beat by a division 2 team then this on a national news outlet. Egh...
Yes, yes, "news".
-
There is an audio recording? Makes it harder to lie about it if there is, but not impossible. I can only guess Brandx is claiming it is fraudulent because of the source regardless of any evidence. If the account is true, not good on prof's part.
-
This will end poorly.
+1
I saw this earlier in the week on a philosophy blog. I didn't post because I thought to myself "why make Rocky's job harder than it is?"
-
I didn't think it was the Jesuit way to subjugate a group of people based on their sexuality.
Retread the story. Nowhere was that stated as happening.
-
+1
I saw this earlier in the week on a philosophy blog. I didn't post because I thought to myself "why make Rocky's job harder than it is?"
Hah, I saw it a couple days ago, and was surprised it wasn't here first.
-
China doesn't have this problem and look where they are going.
Their slowest full year expansion in nearly a quarter century?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/china-cut-reflecting-domestic-reasons-carries-global-resonance.html
-
I'm honestly curious if many of you actually can't see how a conversation about this wouldn't be offensive to a homosexual in the class? I'm not saying that it shouldn't have happen as in college we're supposed to challenge our ideals and debate our positions but it seems like it goes in one ear and out the other that it would possibly be really scaring to an 18yr old kid. race and sexism aren't debated like that anymore out of respect why is homosexuality? Now it would've been a better way to divide the class into two sides on said issue (regardless of actual opinion) and have them do the debate like that because youd manage to get people to challenge their viewpoints while doing proper research into both sides of the issue.
-
I'm honestly curious if many of you actually can't see how a conversation about this wouldn't be offensive to a homosexual in the class? I'm not saying that it shouldn't have happen as in college we're supposed to challenge our ideals and debate our positions but it seems like it goes in one ear and out the other that it would possibly be really scaring to an 18yr old kid. race and sexism aren't debated like that anymore out of respect why is homosexuality? Now it would've been a better way to divide the class into two sides on said issue (regardless of actual opinion) and have them do the debate like that because youd manage to get people to challenge their viewpoints while doing proper research into both sides of the issue.
Racism and sexism (??) are not debated anymore in the college classroom?
-
Racism and sexism (??) are not debated anymore in the college classroom?
Not in a manner where you might see a racist individual talking about African Americans being less than the white man or a misogynistic male speaking about women belonging in the kitchen or not being rational enough to vote. It is debated from a research standpoint to understand previous points of view. At least that was how it was debated in the ethics courses I took at MU.
-
yes i know it's fox news, but no one else will touch this, i guess. but the point is, and i'm trying to stay A-political here, but, i thought liberal arts specifically and college educations generally are supposed to be an exchange of ideas/debate, etc... this gay-straight thing is getting so old. i really don't think most people really care that much anymore. for a teacher to make it a stipulation for taking the class is really out of bounds. talk about intolerance? i would call for a review of this teacher. we need to see if he?she is qualified for marquette to teach at all. alternative life-styles today are so..."yawn"...we have so many other issues that are way more "life challenging" than this. does this teacher know what year it is? not to mention, this does not play out very well for marquette. i would hope they are clarifying this in some way and/or taking some kind of action as, like it or not, fox is one of the most widely read and watched news service
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/22/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/
-
yes i know it's fox news, but no one else will touch this, i guess. but the point is, and i'm trying to stay A-political here, but, i thought liberal arts specifically and college educations generally are supposed to be an exchange of ideas/debate, etc... this gay-straight thing is getting so old. i really don't think most people really care that much anymore. for a teacher to make it a stipulation for taking the class is really out of bounds. talk about intolerance? i would call for a review of this teacher. we need to see if he?she is qualified for marquette to teach at all. alternative life-styles today are so..."yawn"...we have so many other issues that are way more "life challenging" than this. does this teacher know what year it is? not to mention, this does not play out very well for marquette. i would hope they are clarifying this in some way and/or taking some kind of action as, like it or not, fox is one of the most widely read and watched news service
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/22/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/
All well and good. But, the problem is in the link below those comments. She did not say that. According to the student himself, this is what the teacher said: “You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”
I still think the teacher sets the topics for discussion. Just because one student wants to discuss a certain topic doesn't mean it has to happen. And you think that the students should call the shots. That's fine - we just differ in our opinion.
-
Here's the story from a different perspective, as linked to by the Fox article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
My $.02:
I'm sure both the student and the instructor wish they had handled things differently, and the student says as much in the Fox article. She's a grad student with presumably limited experience handling classroom confrontation. He's a student. With an opportunity to have clear heads and be ready for the conversation, the outcome may have been different. I doubt this was a conversation anticipated by the instructor, so she gets more slack from me. The student gets some as well, but he clearly knew what he was going to do after class and likely expected conflict based on his decision to secretly record it.
McAdams, on the other hand, had plenty of time to consider his response. He still published a one-sided post. I recognize the value he provides as a voice of opinions that often run counter to the main narrative on campus, but I think he often misuses his power by presenting incomplete/biased accounts of events. There's room for his values, perspective, and desire to persuade others to coexist with appreciation of the nuance of issues and compassion for those with whom he disagrees, and I think he'd be more effective if he recognized that.
-
Here's the story from a different perspective, as linked to by the Fox article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
My $.02:
I'm sure both the student and the instructor wish they had handled things differently, and the student says as much in the Fox article. She's a grad student with presumably limited experience handling classroom confrontation. He's a student. With an opportunity to have clear heads and be ready for the conversation, the outcome may have been different. I doubt this was a conversation anticipated by the instructor, so she gets more slack from me. The student gets some as well, but he clearly knew what he was going to do after class and likely expected conflict based on his decision to secretly record it.
McAdams, on the other hand, had plenty of time to consider his response. He still published a one-sided post. I recognize the value he provides as a voice of opinions that often run counter to the main narrative on campus, but I think he often misuses his power by presenting incomplete/biased accounts of events. There's room for his values, perspective, and desire to persuade others to coexist with appreciation of the nuance of issues and compassion for those with whom he disagrees, and I think he'd be more effective if he recognized that.
This is a typical response in today's world. Because something happened in ONE CLASS, McAdams wrote that university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor. A bit of a persecution complex.
As Drew said so well, this was a grad student teaching. To somehow equate her opinion to the opinion of all of MU's officials is just, well, I don't know he got there from here.
-
Here's the story from a different perspective, as linked to by the Fox article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
My $.02:
I'm sure both the student and the instructor wish they had handled things differently, and the student says as much in the Fox article. She's a grad student with presumably limited experience handling classroom confrontation. He's a student. With an opportunity to have clear heads and be ready for the conversation, the outcome may have been different. I doubt this was a conversation anticipated by the instructor, so she gets more slack from me. The student gets some as well, but he clearly knew what he was going to do after class and likely expected conflict based on his decision to secretly record it.
McAdams, on the other hand, had plenty of time to consider his response. He still published a one-sided post. I recognize the value he provides as a voice of opinions that often run counter to the main narrative on campus, but I think he often misuses his power by presenting incomplete/biased accounts of events. There's room for his values, perspective, and desire to persuade others to coexist with appreciation of the nuance of issues and compassion for those with whom he disagrees, and I think he'd be more effective if he recognized that.
i sure do hope cheryl doesn't think you are being condescending here. where are all the defenders of women here? drew, you are denying that she can defend herself and i'm sure while you were trying to help her out...
-
i sure do hope cheryl doesn't think you are being condescending here. where are all the defenders of women here? drew, you are denying that she can defend herself and i'm sure while you were trying to help her out...
Could you quote where Drew said that she can't defend herself. I'm not seeing it.
-
Could you quote where Drew said that she can't defend herself. I'm not seeing it.
"she's a grad student with presumably limited experience handling classroom confrontation" "i doubt this conversation was anticipated..." "she gets more slack from me" it's like she can't stick up for herself and he's making excuses for her. "limited experience" yes, but...
-
yes i know it's fox news, but no one else will touch this, i guess.
That should not surprise you one bit. Took 8 days for two of the other big three to even acknowledge John Gruber even existed the last few weeks. One still has yet to do a story on it, despite massive video. Ex CBS reporter Sheryl Atkisson has said it well of late about her former mates.
-
That should not surprise you one bit. Took 8 days for two of the other big three to even acknowledge John Gruber even existed the last few weeks. One still has yet to do a story on it, despite massive video. Ex CBS reporter Sheryl Atkisson has said it well of late about her former mates.
well it's hard to find time for that trivial stuff when we need to know if chelsea if going to breast feed or not-come on!sorry, that was a beach ball-i couldn't help myself
-
That should not surprise you one bit. Took 8 days for two of the other big three to even acknowledge John Gruber even existed the last few weeks. One still has yet to do a story on it, despite massive video. Ex CBS reporter Sheryl Atkisson has said it well of late about her former mates.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Other than providing another example of how you are victimized?
-
Ugh...cmon.
This was clearly something relatively minor that got blown out of proportion. She has a right to determine what goes on in her class. But you don't exercise that right absolutely, especially in an ethics class where you are inviting discussion.
And McAdams of course piles on because he is the paragon of free thinking and balanced debate right?
It just sickens me that everything that goes on in today's world is put under a microscope and then blown up into proportions that are way greater than they should be.
-
Ugh...cmon.
This was clearly something relatively minor that got blown out of proportion. She has a right to determine what goes on in her class. But you don't exercise that right absolutely, especially in an ethics class where you are inviting discussion.
And McAdams of course piles on because he is the paragon of free thinking and balanced debate right?
Wait a minute sultan, in all fairness the quote you took of me was in response to brandy asking me where drew was intimating that Cheryl couldn't defend herself
As for my wise ass comment re: news reporting-sorry-that was off topichttp://
It just sickens me that everything that goes on in today's world is put under a microscope and then blown up into proportions that are way greater than they should be.
-
You are correct rocket...shouldn't have quoted you and edited it accordingly.
-
Ugh...cmon.
This was clearly something relatively minor that got blown out of proportion. She has a right to determine what goes on in her class. But you don't exercise that right absolutely, especially in an ethics class where you are inviting discussion.
And McAdams of course piles on because he is the paragon of free thinking and balanced debate right?
It just sickens me that everything that goes on in today's world is put under a microscope and then blown up into proportions that are way greater than they should be.
I agree with the bulk of this sentiment. This is a non-story. MU and the teacher did everything they were suppose to do. I disagree to some extent with the not exercising that right absolutely (although I agree with the sentiment). In this case, the teacher is expected to provide a discrimination free classroom.
McAdams and the media should be ashamed to be making a story of this.
-
Sorry, my response got muddled up within sultans quote-learning how to use I-pad
Anyway, my mistake was not reading the whole thing through. I see both sides to this now, but that is where this forum is a good tool if used properly. Sometimes we have to tip toe around the politics in order to get the rest of the story. It does however, bring to light how difficult it would be to speak of the some "hot button" issues that Cheryl and dr. Adams refer to without bringing the phobic word up
-
Well I don't think talking about the topic of gay marriage is inherently discriminatory. I think she was afraid it would devolve into something like that...and it wasn't really the topic at hand anyway.
-
Well I don't think talking about the topic of gay marriage is inherently discriminatory. I think she was afraid it would devolve into something like that...and it wasn't really the topic at hand anyway.
I agree with this. The topic wasn't gay marriage, it was gay rights. Everyone should agree that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. So as the teacher mentioned, it should not be a topic of conversation.
A reasonable question to discuss would be is marriage a "right." Done right, that doesn't have to bring gay marriage into the conversation. A more experience instructor could have worked with the student and involved this into the class, while emphasizing that gay marriage would not be discussed, by marriage as a right would.
-
Well I don't think talking about the topic of gay marriage is inherently discriminatory. I think she was afraid it would devolve into something like that...and it wasn't really the topic at hand anyway.
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
-
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
He was not forced to drop the course because he wouldn't conform to the view of the professor. The professor told him that sexist, homophobic and racist comments will not be tolerated in class, and if he had a problem with that then he should drop the course. He didn't have to change his view at all, just not use discriminatory language.
-
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
No one told this kid he has to change his views. He was merely told certain topics weren't going to be discussed in class. If he didn't like it, he could drop the class. Seems like a fair choice.
This is a non-story. Once in a while McAdams exposes something worth exposing, but he is usually grasping for something to stay visible and relevant. This falls into the latter.
-
Buried way down in the article:
"I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.
I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions."
Yes, how convenient.
-
He was not forced to drop the course because he wouldn't conform to the view of the professor. The professor told him that sexist, homophobic and racist comments will not be tolerated in class, and if he had a problem with that then he should drop the course. He didn't have to change his view at all, just not use discriminatory language.
What a wonderful world when we can agree. I think both teacher and student didn't handle this well even to the point of the kid trying to do a "gotcha on the teacher. While wrong, it can be excused somewhat because he is just following the lead of adults.
The culprit is McAdams whose actions were worse than the students. But he doesn't have the excuse of being "young and dumb".
-
"she's a grad student with presumably limited experience handling classroom confrontation" "i doubt this conversation was anticipated..." "she gets more slack from me" it's like she can't stick up for herself and he's making excuses for her. "limited experience" yes, but...
I said "Could you quote where Drew said that she can't defend herself"?
Instead, YOU say "it's like she can't stick up for herself and he's making excuses for her". I didn't ask for YOUR opinion. I asked where Drew said she can't defend herself (which was what you claim he said).
I don't care what you think - your opinions are just as valid as mine. I'm just asking not to make stuff up.
-
I said "Could you quote where Drew said that she can't defend herself"?
Instead, YOU say "it's like she can't stick up for herself and he's making excuses for her". I didn't ask for YOUR opinion. I asked where Drew said she can't defend herself (which was what you claim he said).
I don't care what you think - your opinions are just as valid as mine. I'm just asking not to make stuff up.
well if you are asking me to find the words or a phrase quoting drew saying, that cheryl, she cannot defend herself. i guess you win. but, his babbling around discussing the student-teacher interaction wasn't exactly a boost of confidence for her. you know it and most of the rest of us here see it brandy. if i were the teacher, i would have thanked drew for trying to help, but i've got this one. drew clearly placates cheryl and in a real sense demeans her as well-well she wasn't ready for the confrontation and had limited experience and the student was all prepared and ..... but to find a direct quote of drew saying cheryl, you cannot defend yourself- my bad? if you couldn't see this in drews comments, then either you are being dishonest or you have a larger fish to fry in this. i'll be watching to see that you play by your rules then too. if there isn't a direct quote, then we are opinionating and making things up? no inferences allowed here based on the conversation? i'd like to think we are all a little smarter than that
-
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
What? Did you read anything but the McAdams article? Because what you describe above simply did not happen.
-
Even a cursory examination of McAdams' writings on this subject would show that this issue has been a subject he has focused criticism of Marquette University on over and over and over again for years. He's been writing on this subject since at least when I discovered him in 2005 as a freshman.
To McAdams, and especially in the context of his blog that is not designed like a peer-reviewed publication, this story is just one more on top of the dozens of similar incidents. To him, it's not just one little classroom confrontation, but rather an example of a pattern of behavior that he interprets to be evidence that the university has institutionalized a point of view and a discourages dissenting points of view.
Also, there's simply no resolving this one so to brand/chicos/boxer/otherpolaroppositiesnotnamed: lol internet fight.
-
I agree with this. The topic wasn't gay marriage, it was gay rights. Everyone should agree that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. So as the teacher mentioned, it should not be a topic of conversation.
A reasonable question to discuss would be is marriage a "right." Done right, that doesn't have to bring gay marriage into the conversation. A more experience instructor could have worked with the student and involved this into the class, while emphasizing that gay marriage would not be discussed, by marriage as a right would.
succinctly put and I agree. Shut up or leave is a poor way to handle this
-
McAdams, on the other hand, had plenty of time to consider his response. He still published a one-sided post. I recognize the value he provides as a voice of opinions that often run counter to the main narrative on campus, but I think he often misuses his power by presenting incomplete/biased accounts of events. There's room for his values, perspective, and desire to persuade others to coexist with appreciation of the nuance of issues and compassion for those with whom he disagrees, and I think he'd be more effective if he recognized that.
So much of this.
I like the idea that McAdams can provide an opposing opinion at MU, but his responses almost always devolve into some sort of rhetoric.
He's quick to jump up on the soapbox and preach, and then I become very skeptical because he looks like a guy hunting opportunities to promote his own agenda.
-
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
Yikes. I've seen and read people make $hit up before but this one was a doozy. Well played!
-
well if you are asking me to find the words or a phrase quoting drew saying, that cheryl, she cannot defend herself. i guess you win. but, his babbling around discussing the student-teacher interaction wasn't exactly a boost of confidence for her. you know it and most of the rest of us here see it brandy. if i were the teacher, i would have thanked drew for trying to help, but i've got this one. drew clearly placates cheryl and in a real sense demeans her as well-well she wasn't ready for the confrontation and had limited experience and the student was all prepared and ..... but to find a direct quote of drew saying cheryl, you cannot defend yourself- my bad? if you couldn't see this in drews comments, then either you are being dishonest or you have a larger fish to fry in this. i'll be watching to see that you play by your rules then too. if there isn't a direct quote, then we are opinionating and making things up? no inferences allowed here based on the conversation? i'd like to think we are all a little smarter than that
As you should. I say stupid things and reach conclusions based on my biases at times. And, mix opinion and fact as though they are the same.
-
What is really out of hand is forcing a student to drop the course because the student does not conform to the view of the professor. What was even more egregious is that the University would not even let him transfer out of her class. Then again perhaps the University knew that wherever he transferred to he would face the same problem. I don't think I'll donate to the school for awhile if students can't have a different view than their professors or suffer the consequences.
He wasn't forced to drop the class. its not exactly a prudent idea for a professor to allow remarks that could even be construed as racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you were a professor would you let a person speak about how they see a specific group of people as inferior or not deserving of some legal rights? you'd be out of a job very quickly if you did
-
If you were a professor would you let a person speak about how they see a specific group of people as inferior or not deserving of some legal rights?
Absolutely. Isn't that part of the free exchange of ideas that a university setting is all about?
Would I allow those remarks to go unchallenged? Absolutely not.
-
Absolutely. Isn't that part of the free exchange of ideas that a university setting is all about?
Would I allow those remarks to go unchallenged? Absolutely not.
Fair enough.
I just think that something like this (or for instance a student being racist in class) isn't exactly conducive to a good learning environment. just my two cents
-
Absolutely. Isn't that part of the free exchange of ideas that a university setting is all about?
Would I allow those remarks to go unchallenged? Absolutely not.
So there would be no line of what is appropriate and what is not for classroom discussion?
Free exchange of ideas is great, but professors do have a right to determine the topics of discussion. Its not just 50 minutes of free for all discussion. That's what Caffrey's is for after class.
Further, these are undergrads. These are instruction-driven lecture classes. This was not a graduate seminar where the type of discussion that you are referring to is supposed to happen.
-
So there would be no line of what is appropriate and what is not for classroom discussion?
Free exchange of ideas is great, but professors do have a right to determine the topics of discussion. Its not just 50 minutes of free discussion. That's what Caffrey's is for after class.
If the topic at hand is racism and some idiot wants to argue that we should bring back slavery, let him talk. I would have confidence that there would be plenty of other students that would be able to shoot down any "logical" points he may have. Who knows? You might be able to change his mind.
Making certain subjects taboo or too sensitive to talk about is what shuts down intelligent discourse.
-
Fair enough.
I just think that something like this (or for instance a student being racist in class) isn't exactly conducive to a good learning environment. just my two cents
If the student wants to lay out a belief system that you disagree with so strongly (e.g. racism), then it ought to be pretty easy to expose that student's ideas as foolish by combating their speech with more speech.
-
This discussion reminds me of my all-time favorite Doonesbury cartoon:
(http://www.nedgallagher.com/courses/images/db850127.gif)
-
i sure do hope cheryl doesn't think you are being condescending here. where are all the defenders of women here? drew, you are denying that she can defend herself and i'm sure while you were trying to help her out...
well if you are asking me to find the words or a phrase quoting drew saying, that cheryl, she cannot defend herself. i guess you win. but, his babbling around discussing the student-teacher interaction wasn't exactly a boost of confidence for her. you know it and most of the rest of us here see it brandy. if i were the teacher, i would have thanked drew for trying to help, but i've got this one. drew clearly placates cheryl and in a real sense demeans her as well-well she wasn't ready for the confrontation and had limited experience and the student was all prepared and ..... but to find a direct quote of drew saying cheryl, you cannot defend yourself- my bad? if you couldn't see this in drews comments, then either you are being dishonest or you have a larger fish to fry in this.
The fact that Ms. Abbate is a woman is irrelevant to this situation. Her identity as a grad student and thus the unlikeliness that she has extensive classroom experience is what matters. If you want to make a case that I'm being condescending towards grad students, feel free. Your implied accusation of sexism is seemingly disingenuous and only serves to derail this conversation. (Ironically similar to how Ms. Abbate may have felt about the discussion of marriage equality in class.)
Your main claims--that I tried to help Ms. Abbate and that I denied she can defend herself--are also off-base. I was simply giving my take on the situation and even labeled it as "my $.02." I have no belief that my post will make a difference for her; I'm just contributing to a discussion about it.
Part of that included my reasons for placing less of the blame on her (and on the student) relative to how much I blame Dr. McAdams. Yes, I was defending her (and the student). That doesn't mean Ms. Abbate can't defend herself. If she was a part of this thread, it might be different. If she had come out and asked people on message boards to stop making a case for her, it might be different. If those conditions are true, then my bad.
Your posts suggest that you consider this conversation to have a whole lot of influence on the situation instead of seeing it as nothing but a relatively inconsequential conversation among observers. I'm happy to continue it as a relatively inconsequential conversation among observers. Again, my only point about Ms. Abbate is that her inexperience partially pardons her here.
-
If the topic at hand is racism and some idiot wants to argue that we should bring back slavery, let him talk. I would have confidence that there would be plenty of other students that would be able to shoot down any "logical" points he may have. Who knows? You might be able to change his mind.
Making certain subjects taboo or too sensitive to talk about is what shuts down intelligent discourse.
Yes and no.
It depends upon the class.
Should we talk about abortion in an ethics class? Maybe, but it's also likely to derail an entire period/conversation.
So, I think it's good to discuss hard topics, but I also think it's generally okay for a professor to determine the time and place.
It's not like anybody is telling (insert student) that they can NEVER discuss a topic. They just can't discuss it in that class on that day. If he/she wants to go back to the dorms and discuss, he can. If he wants to go on the internet, he can. Etc. etc.
-
If the topic at hand is racism and some idiot wants to argue that we should bring back slavery, let him talk. I would have confidence that there would be plenty of other students that would be able to shoot down any "logical" points he may have. Who knows? You might be able to change his mind.
Making certain subjects taboo or too sensitive to talk about is what shuts down intelligent discourse.
But at a predominantly conservative school you likely wouldn't have the same support talking about gay rights and you then get into that one homosexual child in the room feeling ostracized and hated. Let's imagine it was your daughter would you want her in a class where she's hearing about a good deal of people don't want her having the same equality straight people enjoy? Like opinion of the actual issue aside I know if it was my son or daughter I most certainly wouldn't want them to be hated on like that whether those doing it are aware he/she was gay or not.
-
If the topic at hand is racism and some idiot wants to argue that we should bring back slavery, let him talk. I would have confidence that there would be plenty of other students that would be able to shoot down any "logical" points he may have. Who knows? You might be able to change his mind.
Making certain subjects taboo or too sensitive to talk about is what shuts down intelligent discourse.
I disagree. The students are there to learn. 29 other people should not be deprived of a lecture because some racist idiot (in your scenario) wants to talk about his views for a chunk of class time. If every person in class wanted to do that, when would anything actually be taught? Marquette costs way too much money. Professors have a right to determine what and when topics are discussed in class.
Again, this was not a graduate seminar.
-
I disagree. The students are there to learn. 29 other people should not be deprived of a lecture because some racist idiot (in your scenario) wants to talk about his views for a chunk of class time. Marquette costs way too much money. Professors have a right to determine what and when topics are discussed in class.
Again, this was not a graduate seminar.
Completely agree with this to. If it was a graduate seminar that's a different story those are mature individuals set on a career path or direction of higher education. This is an undergrad class.
-
I disagree. The students are there to learn. 29 other people should not be deprived of a lecture because some racist idiot (in your scenario) wants to talk about his views for a chunk of class time. If every person in class wanted to do that, when would anything actually be taught? Marquette costs way too much money. Professors have a right to determine what and when topics are discussed in class.
Again, this was not a graduate seminar.
What is the point of taking a philosophy class if you can't discuss the points? It doesn't have to be the entire class time; you don't think that arguing a very controversial point for 5 minutes doesn't have educational value?
I had a Phil class at 8:00 a.m. The professor was a classic straight-up liberal, complete with longish hair, corduroy elbow patches, John Lennon glasses, and a button that said "Question Authority". There was a marine ROTC in my class who insisted on engaging the professor on nearly every subject. At the time, I was like, "Oh my God, would you just shut up! It's too early for this!" But looking back, I admire his chutzpah. And true to his button, the professor gave him the opportunity to have his say.
-
What is the point of taking a philosophy class if you can't discuss the points? It doesn't have to be the entire class time; you don't think that arguing a very controversial point for 5 minutes doesn't have educational value?
I had a Phil class at 8:00 a.m. The professor was a classic straight-up liberal, complete with longish hair, corduroy elbow patches, John Lennon glasses, and a button that said "Question Authority". There was a marine ROTC in my class who insisted on engaging the professor on nearly every subject. At the time, I was like, "Oh my God, would you just shut up! It's too early for this!" But looking back, I admire his chutzpah. And true to his button, the professor gave him the opportunity to have his say.
I'm not saying there should be no discussion. I'm saying the professor has the right to determine the points of discussion and what is in or out of bounds.
Since you took Phil, you must remember Kant's third formulation of the categorical imperative...
What if every student in your class acted like the marine ROTC? If his behavior was universalized, when would you have learned anything? This is why instructors need to have the ability to regulate discussion. Pretty simple.
-
I'm not saying there should be no discussion. I'm saying the professor has the right to determine the points of discussion and what is in or out of bounds.
...
What if every student in your class acted like the marine ROTC? If his behavior was universalized, when would you have learned anything? This is why instructors need to have the ability to regulate discussion. Pretty simple.
I think that the reason that people get their backs against a wall about this is the appearance that the response to speech/ideas that the university/society doesn't like is to silence that speech rather than to combat it with more speech. By turning dissenting opinion into something that has no value, e.g. criticism of gay marriage = "hate speech," then it is simply silenced.
Honestly, I rather doubt that this is as widespread of a "problem" as some people fear, but I understand the reaction to look skeptically on an environment of learning that silences dissenting opinion.
-
I think that the reason that people get their backs against a wall about this is the appearance that the response to speech/ideas that the university/society doesn't like is to silence that speech rather than to combat it with more speech. By turning dissenting opinion into something that has no value, e.g. criticism of gay marriage = "hate speech," then it is simply silenced.
Honestly, I rather doubt that this is as widespread of a "problem" as some people fear, but I understand the reaction to look skeptically on an environment of learning that silences dissenting opinion.
Tell that to Condaleeza Rice who had to withdraw from her commencement speech because a group of liberal faculty threatened to disrupt commencement proceedings at Rutgers this last spring. It seems only liberal speakers are welcome at many of our Universities.
-
Tell that to Condaleeza Rice who had to withdraw from her commencement speech because a group of liberal faculty threatened to disrupt commencement proceedings at Rutgers this last spring. It seems only liberal speakers are welcome at many of our Universities.
Silly and untrue. Happens on both sides.
-
Tell that to Condaleeza Rice who had to withdraw from her commencement speech because a group of liberal faculty threatened to disrupt commencement proceedings at Rutgers this last spring. It seems only liberal speakers are welcome at many of our Universities.
Such a stupid post. For starters if some of your opinions are going to make people feel like they're going to hell or don't have equal rights then live with the consequences of having them. Second I'm sure that if you wanna see a conservative speaker you needn't look much farther than conservative universities. Finally if a party is having trouble keeping in touch with a young demographic why would they make a good commencement speaker for a bunch of young people? Furthermore why do you feel that commencement speakers need to be politicized?
-
Silly and untrue. Happens on both sides.
Examples Please.. Don't seem to recall any Liberal speakers being denied the right to address an audience..
-
Examples Please.. Don't seem to recall any Liberal speakers being denied the right to address an audience..
Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind and she had to give up a chunk of her head during a speech, because a crazy conservative thought she was the devil.
-
Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind and she had to give up a chunk of her head during a speech, because a crazy conservative thought she was the devil.
Yes, it's a scientific fact that all mentally people are conservatives.
-
Such a stupid post. For starters if some of your opinions are going to make people feel like they're going to hell or don't have equal rights then live with the consequences of having them. Second I'm sure that if you wanna see a conservative speaker you needn't look much farther than conservative universities. Finally if a party is having trouble keeping in touch with a young demographic why would they make a good commencement speaker for a bunch of young people? Furthermore why do you feel that commencement speakers need to be politicized?
It wasn't the students that protested it was faculty members....and my cousin and her friends were looking forward to her speak at their graduation.
-
Examples Please.. Don't seem to recall any Liberal speakers being denied the right to address an audience..
Not getting political, just providing an example.
The first lady in Topeka, Kansas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204285-michelle-obama-scraps-graduation-speech-after-protests
-
Not getting political, just providing an example.
The first lady in Topeka, Kansas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204285-michelle-obama-scraps-graduation-speech-after-protests
They protested due to security concerns not her political views; not quite the same.
-
It wasn't the students that protested it was faculty members....and my cousin and her friends were looking forward to her speak at their graduation.
I'm sure they were as people have a tendency to befriend like minded individuals. Personally I think she should've spoken as long as the speech didn't include her political beliefs (I also stand by my live with the consequences that your views will make people feel like they're going to hell or don't have equal rights as well)
Not denying that teachers protested but students did as well
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/nyregion/rice-backs-out-of-rutgers-speech-after-student-protests.html?referrer=
-
Either Utah or Utah State had a femnist speaker withdraw because of protests (gamers threatened her). UC-Berkeley also had some hoopla over inviting Bill Maher to speak (the students disliked his views on Islam).
The ubiquitous protesting of conservative commencement speakers was noted by Michael Bloomberg. He gave a good speech on it (I'd link, but I'm on my phone and can't copy and paste for some reason).
-
I'm sure they were as people have a tendency to befriend like minded individuals. Personally I think she should've spoken as long as the speech didn't include her political beliefs (I also stand by my live with the consequences that your views will make people feel like they're going to hell or don't have equal rights as well)
Not denying that teachers protested but students did as well
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/nyregion/rice-backs-out-of-rutgers-speech-after-student-protests.html?referrer=
Just because I believe that people should not be silenced for their beliefs be that in the class room, at college commencements or protesters in Ferguson does not mean I believe the LGBT community is going to hell or does not deserve equal rights. My married daughter has two gay BFFs since high school. They are very fine gentleman and my family has never placed any judgement on their life style. In fact one is a Seton Hall grad and it has become a tradition for us to see MU play Seton Hall here every year in New Jersey. So who is judging who here?
-
Just because I believe that people should not be silenced for their beliefs be that in the class room, at college commencements or protesters in Ferguson does not mean I believe the LGBT community is going to hell or does not deserve equal rights. My married daughter has two gay BFFs since high school. They are very fine gentleman and my family has never placed any judgement on their life style. In fact one is a Seton Hall grad and it has become a tradition for us to see MU play Seton Hall here every year in New Jersey. So who is judging who here?
I think we're confusing an instructor running a class, and somebody having their speech restricted.
They aren't the same thing.
An instructor may limit topics or discussions in order to keep an issue moving, or change the direction of a discussion. They are instructing a class, and have a responsibility/ability to run the class accordingly.
If a student doesn't appreciate that, he can go someplace else and espouse his/her views, or he can take a different class.
This isn't that complicated. This isn't political persecution.
-
Examples Please.. Don't seem to recall any Liberal speakers being denied the right to address an audience..
There was (is?) a movement to stop Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley's commencement. Notre Lame didn't want O'Bama a few years ago.
-
Just because I believe that people should not be silenced for their beliefs be that in the class room, at college commencements or protesters in Ferguson does not mean I believe the LGBT community is going to hell or does not deserve equal rights. My married daughter has two gay BFFs since high school. They are very fine gentleman and my family has never placed any judgement on their life style. In fact one is a Seton Hall grad and it has become a tradition for us to see MU play Seton Hall here every year in New Jersey. So who is judging who here?
Well I Apologize for assuming the guy who posted something from FOX news and was saying how unfair it is that liberals are accepted as speakers would have the anti gay marriage view based on religion. Or perhaps you are against it and don't see how that could possibly make your daughters BFFs feel like you don't think they deserve the same rights as you.
-
There was (is?) a movement to stop Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley's commencement. Notre Lame didn't want O'Bama a few years ago.
Michelle had to cancel in Kansas
-
Michelle had to cancel in Kansas
And Catholics protested John Kerry speaking at Boston College.
-
And a minority of Catholics protested John Kerry speaking at Boston College.
FIFY
-
FIFY
Isn't it the vocal minority, on both sides, that seem to dominate these types of speeches? An unfortunately the crazy 10% on both sides of the aisle seem to dominate most issues. Go America.
-
Isn't it the vocal minority, on both sides, that seem to dominate these types of speeches? An unfortunately the crazy 10% on both sides of the aisle seem to dominate most issues. Go America.
The most efficient way to turn out the vote for your side is to appeal to the crazy. Politicians may not be aware of it, but their handlers are.
-
Update:
Guess who is coming for a campus visit?
http://www.godhatescute ones.com/fliers/20141128_Marquette-University-WI.pdf
EDIT:
Wow, you know you are a hate-monger if your web address doesn't get pass the auto-censor. Let's try this again:
http://new.marquettewire.org/2014/11/30/tribune/tribune-news/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-campus-next-week/
-
Update:
Guess who is coming for a campus visit?
http://www.godhatescute ones.com/fliers/20141128_Marquette-University-WI.pdf
EDIT:
Wow, you know you are a hate-monger if your web address doesn't get pass the auto-censor. Let's try this again:
http://new.marquettewire.org/2014/11/30/tribune/tribune-news/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-campus-next-week/
There are few things in life that I actively HATE.
Westboro is one of them.
They are worst, and challenging a Jesuit University is waaaay out of their league.
I would love for the MU Jesuits to respond to these thugs with some knowledge and a real Christian message.
-
Wonder how McAdams is feelin' right about now...
-
Westboro Baptists are a liberal front group, founded by a liberal.
Look it up. It's not hard.
-
Westboro Baptists are a liberal front group, founded by a liberal.
Look it up. It's not hard.
Moron!!
-
There was (is?) a movement to stop Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley's commencement. Notre Lame didn't want O'Bama a few years ago.
It's true that Bill Maher is liberal on most issues, but he's under attack at Berkley from the left not the right due to his position on Islamic radicalism/terrorism. And while there was a modest protest against President Obama speaking at ND he spoke nonetheless and received his honorary degree.
-
Westboro Baptists are a liberal front group, founded by a liberal.
Look it up. It's not hard.
Did Alex Jones tell you this?
-
Update:
Guess who is coming for a campus visit?
http://www.godhatescute ones.com/fliers/20141128_Marquette-University-WI.pdf
EDIT:
Wow, you know you are a hate-monger if your web address doesn't get pass the auto-censor. Let's try this again:
http://new.marquettewire.org/2014/11/30/tribune/tribune-news/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-campus-next-week/
They're protesting for only 30 minutes? WEAK.
-
They're protesting for only 30 minutes? WEAK.
Well, you know, it's finals week.....
-
I joked to my fraternity that as a philanthropy event for our chapter we should sell rotten tomatoes for $1 to throw at them and all the proceeds go to some organization that they oppose.
-
Moron!!
Intelligent response.
-
Did Alex Jones tell you this?
Who?
-
Westboro Baptists are a liberal front group, founded by a liberal.
Look it up. It's not hard.
Yes founded by a civil rights activist who went crazy. Liberal front group? Really? Remind me which side is trying to use religion as a basis for every law in this country?
-
Yes founded by a civil rights activist who went crazy. Liberal front group? Really? Remind me which side is trying to use religion as a basis for every law in this country?
Both.
-
Notre Lame didn't want O'Bama a few years ago.
Yes! An Irish President! Why wouldn't Notre Dame want him?
-
McAdams suspended.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquettes-john-mcadams-suspended-after-criticizing-ta-on-gay-marriage-discussion-b99410656z1-286100731.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs
Says he's being treated like a terrorist, because well, that's McAdams for you.
-
McAdams suspended.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquettes-john-mcadams-suspended-after-criticizing-ta-on-gay-marriage-discussion-b99410656z1-286100731.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs
Says he's being treated like a terrorist, because well, that's McAdams for you.
What he fails to recognize is that the suspension is not about the original issue of free expression in a classroom, it is about his public harassment of a TA (student) in his blog.
A small dose of humility and self-reflection would do him some good.
-
It might be time for him to move on.
He's becoming a parody of himself.
-
You have the freedom to speak, but you are not free of the consequences.
-
McAdams suspended.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquettes-john-mcadams-suspended-after-criticizing-ta-on-gay-marriage-discussion-b99410656z1-286100731.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs
Says he's being treated like a terrorist, because well, that's McAdams for you.
Standard bully behavior.
Picks on someone weaker than himself - in this instance a teaching assistant - and then when forced to face consequences, portrays himself as the real victim.
-
Kudos to the Dean for having the courage to do something, when he had to be certain McAdams would make an even bigger stink about this in the press after doing it. I guarantee you the first call McAdams made after getting the email was to the JS.
-
Says he's being treated like a terrorist, because well, that's McAdams for you.
Not sure how getting to keep your pay and tenure while not having to do any actual work, all while your case is going through the established review process, is being treated like a terrorist.
He would love the private sector. It appears that the normal procedure these days is zero notice and getting perp-walked through the office carrying your box of personal stuff, even if it is a just a RIF.
-
McAdams suspended.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquettes-john-mcadams-suspended-after-criticizing-ta-on-gay-marriage-discussion-b99410656z1-286100731.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=hs
Says he's being treated like a terrorist, because well, that's McAdams for you.
How do we know the powers-that-be at MU didn't shove food up his a$$?
-
Kudos to the Dean for having the courage to do something, when he had to be certain McAdams would make an even bigger stink about this in the press after doing it. I guarantee you the first call McAdams made after getting the email was to the JS.
Agreed. Also, going to the JS right away is not a good way to help your case. I said awhile ago that his actions are dangerously close to sufficient for revocation of tenure. His going to the JS with "treating me like a terrorist" may be enough to push it over the edge.
-
Agreed. Also, going to the JS right away is not a good way to help your case. I said awhile ago that his actions are dangerously close to sufficient for revocation of tenure. His going to the JS with "treating me like a terrorist" may be enough to push it over the edge.
The JS quoted his blog, he didn't go to the JS ...
-
The JS quoted his blog, he didn't go to the JS ...
How do you know he didn't? Do you think the JS takes the time to routinely peruse the blogs of university professors? I doubt it.
Also, McAdams' use of the royal "we" is both annoying and a glimpse into his arrogance...
"As for having to remain off campus — in effect, being treated like a potential terrorist — we don't know where that came from. The last time we were accused of harassment (it was sexual harassment, since we told an entire class that feminists grossly exaggerate the incidence of college date rape) we were not treated like a terrorist."
-
How do you know he didn't? Do you think the JS takes the time to routinely peruse the blogs of university professors? I doubt it.
Also, McAdams' use of the royal "we" is both annoying and a glimpse into his arrogance...
"As for having to remain off campus — in effect, being treated like a potential terrorist — we don't know where that came from. The last time we were accused of harassment (it was sexual harassment, since we told an entire class that feminists grossly exaggerate the incidence of college date rape) we were not treated like a terrorist."
Jesus. Does it really matter that much?
If McAdams went to them they would have a direct quote, because he would have actually spoken to them.
This story was all over the radio for hours before the JS got on it. Maybe someone let them know they were behind on another news story.
-
The JS quoted his blog, he didn't go to the JS ...
That is a difference, but minor. He is still going public with these things with pretty strong language. Unwise. Also, unwise to indicate that previously you said to an entire class that "Feminsits grossly exaggerate the incidence of date rape."
He is walking a very fine line and in my opinion he is on the wrong side of it.
-
He's trying to martyr himself.
Generally, I'm cool with a conservative professing stirring some crap up at University, but this dude has just gone overboard.
You want to be a martyr so bad? You just might get it. Have fun living on blogger income.
-
How do you know he didn't? Do you think the JS takes the time to routinely peruse the blogs of university professors? I doubt it.
You're right. he doesn't know it. Any more than you know that "the first call McAdams made after getting the email was to the JS" which you "guaranteed". This is people's politics informing their conclusions (on both sides).
-
How do you know he didn't? Do you think the JS takes the time to routinely peruse the blogs of university professors? I doubt it.
I can almost guarantee that someone at the JS looked at McAdams blog. It is well known.
-
I can almost guarantee that someone at the JS looked at McAdams blog. It is well known.
McAdams was on 620 this morning. Even if the print side hates the talk radio side, talk radio already covered it and made it an easy to write story. He may have gone to 620/Talk radio, but I highly doubt he went to the JS -there isnt a conservative at the JS, they're just avoiding the "Here's what the dead tree isn't covering" story on 620 and 1130. any that thinks this started with the JS covering the story has their head up their ass.
What is interesting is that the story has been getting national attention http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/17/marquette-suspends-profs-teaching-orders-him-off-campus/
-
McAdams was on 620 this morning. Even if the print side hates the talk radio side, talk radio already covered it and made it an easy to write story. He may have gone to 620/Talk radio, but I highly doubt he went to the JS -there isnt a conservative at the JS, they're just avoiding the "Here's what the dead tree isn't covering" story on 620 and 1130. any that thinks this started with the JS covering the story has their head up their ass.
What is interesting is that the story has been getting national attention http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/17/marquette-suspends-profs-teaching-orders-him-off-campus/
Well even if he didn't go to the JS, he certainly is going to the media in general...
-
Well even if he didn't go to the JS, he certainly is going to the media in general...
As he should. This is absurd.
The issue was dead. MU handled Westboro perfectly. Should have let the controversy die out, but they couldn't help themselves.
-
He's trying to martyr himself.
Generally, I'm cool with a conservative professing stirring some crap up at University, but this dude has just gone overboard.
You want to be a martyr so bad? You just might get it. Have fun living on blogger income.
I am fairly confident that they will find him not guilty, or issue him some sort of minor reprimand, and he will be back by second semester. There is a reason they waited on this until the first semester was over. I mean, it is generally unwise to call out a graduate student in your blog, but I am struggling with how this will deteriorate into a fireable offense.
-
Well even if he didn't go to the JS, he certainly is going to the media in general...
way to walk back your own stupidity
-
As he should. This is absurd.
The issue was dead. MU handled Westboro perfectly. Should have let the controversy die out, but they couldn't help themselves.
You can't just "let it die out" if someone files a complaint. As I said above, they are using the semester break to investigate, and will likely issue some minor reprimand before the second semester.
-
I am fairly confident that they will find him not guilty, or issue him some sort of minor reprimand, and he will be back by second semester. There is a reason they waited on this until the first semester was over. I mean, it is generally unwise to call out a graduate student in your blog, but I am struggling with how this will deteriorate into a fireable offense.
I don't know the ins and outs of academia, so I can't speak to what will happen.
I'm not even saying he should be fired, but not everything is politically motivated. Sometimes people are just a-holes, and they need to be dealt with in such a manner.
McAdams routinely makes stuff fit his platform. If he really wanted to find out what was going on in the phil department, he could have started by engaging them. Didn't have to blog about it.
I think the guy is super bright, but he's become a parody, where anything/everything that happens professionally is somehow an act of aggression against his conservative viewpoint, and then ends up as blog fodder.
-
That is a difference, but minor. He is still going public with these things with pretty strong language. Unwise. Also, unwise to indicate that previously you said to an entire class that "Feminsits grossly exaggerate the incidence of date rape."
He is walking a very fine line and in my opinion he is on the wrong side of it.
I was in that class. It was an examination of how different polling questions and definitions can yield different conclusions once data is published.
Question: "Have you been date raped?" got a response of X% Yes
Different question: "Have you ever been touched anywhere on your body without having first given consent?" got a yes response much greater than X%.
The "grossly exaggerate the incidence of date rape" thing comes from looking at how the researchers characterized the data in their publication. The publication used positive responses to questions that many people wouldn't consider a "date rape" to count toward their reporting that "Y% of college aged women have been a victim of date rape." The point was to evaluate how broadly or narrowly questions and definitions can effect the results of polling. It wasn't really just an unhinged rant about evil feminists.
All that being said, he's extremely blunt in his delivery, is an old white guy with a southern accent and a slovenly appearance, and comes in right at the line of inappropriate in how he examines these subjects at times. He tries to be controversial and goes overboard on a somewhat regular basis.
I'm casually interested in seeing how this goes.
-
way to walk back your own stupidity
He went to the JS, he went to 620...is the point any less valid?
He took it out of house to make his employer look bad, which he does quite often.
If I got in trouble for harassing someone at my work in the real world and managed to get on the radio and whine about it, what do you think would happen to me? Bye bye.
Honestly regardless of politics, I don't see how anyone who loves MU can support a guy whose sole mission in life is to make MU look bad, whether its warranted or not. I'd say the same thing about a crazy liberal person badmouthing MU all over the media. Good riddance.
-
I don't know the ins and outs of academia, so I can't speak to what will happen.
I'm not even saying he should be fired, but not everything is politically motivated. Sometimes people are just a-holes, and they need to be dealt with in such a manner.
McAdams routinely makes stuff fit his platform. If he really wanted to find out what was going on in the phil department, he could have started by engaging them. Didn't have to blog about it.
I think the guy is super bright, but he's become a parody, where anything/everything that happens professionally is somehow an act of aggression against his conservative viewpoint, and then ends up as blog fodder.
Oh I completely agree. I mean his stuff reads like a Colbert skit.
-
He went to the JS, he went to 620...is the point any less valid?
He took it out of house to make his employer look bad, which he does quite often.
If I got in trouble for harassing someone at my work in the real world and managed to get on the radio and whine about it, what do you think would happen to me? Bye bye.
Honestly regardless of politics, I don't see how anyone who loves MU can support a guy whose sole mission in life is to make MU look bad, whether its warranted or not. I'd say the same thing about a crazy liberal person badmouthing MU all over the media. Good riddance.
Dan Maguire?
-
I am fairly confident that they will find him not guilty, or issue him some sort of minor reprimand, and he will be back by second semester. There is a reason they waited on this until the first semester was over. I mean, it is generally unwise to call out a graduate student in your blog, but I am struggling with how this will deteriorate into a fireable offense.
I agree and disagree. The action they took with the suspension, means the administration is seriously sick of the guy. They are using this as an opportunity to fire him (in the future). He will receive a minor reprimand (in most peoples eyes). He will likely have a letter put on his permanent file and will be instructed that future actions will be considered a fireable offense.
He will then be able to chose whether he wants to tone down his rhetoric or risk being fire, or alternatively to look for a new job.
For most tenure revocations they need that first warning/action officially on file (some exceptions to this). After that it is far far easier to fire the individual. That letter on file is extremely rare and would be considered a fairly significant reprimand, academia does not take such actions often.
-
He went to the JS, he went to 620...is the point any less valid?
He took it out of house to make his employer look bad, which he does quite often.
If I got in trouble for harassing someone at my work in the real world and managed to get on the radio and whine about it, what do you think would happen to me? Bye bye.
Honestly regardless of politics, I don't see how anyone who loves MU can support a guy whose sole mission in life is to make MU look bad, whether its warranted or not. I'd say the same thing about a crazy liberal person badmouthing MU all over the media. Good riddance.
Dan Maguire?
Maguire is different. He doesn't publish a blog that calls out his employer. He mostly does his thing in scholarly journals that are consistent with his research and his philosophy. Marquette has been extremely supportive of him because he does things the "right way" in that regard.
-
I agree and disagree. The action they took with the suspension, means the administration is seriously sick of the guy. They are using this as an opportunity to fire him (in the future). He will receive a minor reprimand (in most peoples eyes). He will likely have a letter put on his permanent file and will be instructed that future actions will be considered a fireable offense.
He will then be able to chose whether he wants to tone down his rhetoric or risk being fire, or alternatively to look for a new job.
For most tenure revocations they need that first warning/action officially on file (some exceptions to this). After that it is far far easier to fire the individual. That letter on file is extremely rare and would be considered a fairly significant reprimand, academia does not take such actions often.
Good points all around.
-
I agree and disagree. The action they took with the suspension, means the administration is seriously sick of the guy. They are using this as an opportunity to fire him (in the future). He will receive a minor reprimand (in most peoples eyes). He will likely have a letter put on his permanent file and will be instructed that future actions will be considered a fireable offense.
He will then be able to chose whether he wants to tone down his rhetoric or risk being fire, or alternatively to look for a new job.
For most tenure revocations they need that first warning/action officially on file (some exceptions to this). After that it is far far easier to fire the individual. That letter on file is extremely rare and would be considered a fairly significant reprimand, academia does not take such actions often.
Then the lawsuits will start.
-
the only thing missing out of marquette's "dragnet" harassment policy is looking cross-eyed at your adversary. if this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of, he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech. welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over- ?-(
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/
-
the only thing missing out of marquette's "dragnet" harassment policy is looking cross-eyed at your adversary. if this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of, he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech. welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over- ?-(
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/
I have seen this before.
I have 2 gay family members. Through them I have met their friends. One of the friends is conservative, which brings him no limit of grief. It's like being a conservative black or in this case a conservative Muslim. I joked with him that he was going to lose his gay card. He laughed, some others, not so much.
-
f this incident were flipped, you would be hearing things more along the line of, he's just exercising his creative juices and rights of free speech. welcoming a dialogue of opposing viewpoints, and all the rest of the adjectives the left uses to justify their speech while stifling and even in some cases harassing their opposition into silence...phobi racist phobic racist...
here's another example of tolerance on college campus's and you can just feel the tolerance just oozing all over- ?-(
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/campus-turns-on-muslim-conservative-who-penned-pc-satire/
I won't go as far as you did, but in a way, you touched on my problem with MU's handling of this. There has been far more inflammatory things said and done on college campuses (even MU) that have been protected by "academic freedom."
-
I won't go as far as you did, but in a way, you touched on my problem with MU's handling of this. There has been far more inflammatory things said and done on college campuses (even MU) that have been protected by "academic freedom."
The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.
This isn't an issue of academic freedom because there was nothing "academic" about McAdams' remarks, nor was there any academic intent behind them. He didn't use his blog as a platform to further scholarship or understanding. He used it to attack a co-worker with whom he (perhaps) has different ideas about how to run a classroom, and to regurgitate some apparently long-held grudges against other faculty.
-
The number of fascists on this board amazes me.
Be careful, ladies. One day the tables may turn and if the university is ever run by a conservative you could find your own ideological friends on the firing squad using the exact same contrived logic that you're displaying here.
-
The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.
While it might not be explicit policy, there's a University identity element at play here. Neither side is blameless. I just think MU overreacted by banning him from campus.
-
The point you all seem to be missing is that the target of McAdams' piece wasn't a public (or university) policy, a political or public figure, or even an issue in the public discourse.
This isn't an issue of academic freedom because there was nothing "academic" about McAdams' remarks, nor was there any academic intent behind them. He didn't use his blog as a platform to further scholarship or understanding. He used to attack a co-worker with whom he (perhaps) has different ideas about how to run a classroom, and to regurgitate some apparently long-held grudges against other faculty.
Exactly.
I'm in favor of a conservative voice on campus and challenging the status quo. I'm not in favor of a professor taking every opportunity publicly call out his employer and co-workers and push his own agenda.
As isolated incidents, McAdams is fine, but now he has a track record of this kinda of thing. He doesn't actually want change, he just wants to promote his viewpoint.
If I were a co-worker, I would be afraid to engage with the guy, because if I had a disagreement with him, I could end up as blog fodder.
At this point, McAdams is not exactly an instrument of change.
-
I know you libs hate McAdams, just like you hate anyone you disagree with.
But the logic used by Marquette here demonstrates what an amateur hour leadership the school has had, for decades, even on completely non-political issues. That fact should not be controversial.
The school can't fill a Dean or Provost position to save its life. They just filled the A&S Dean position after seven years of bloopers and interims, and apparently the SLU comm professor - turned Marquette provost flopped.
Firing a tenured professor for - gasp - blogging about the discussion stifling nature of a Phil class is going to make the school look as dumb as ever as a potential employer. And that's not good even if you're a leftist.
-
Again, he was attacking a student. This is not about academic freedom. Its not about politics. It is about harassment. Period.
-
Exactly.
I'm in favor of a conservative voice on campus and challenging the status quo. I'm not in favor of a professor taking every opportunity publicly call out his employer and co-workers and push his own agenda.
As isolated incidents, McAdams is fine, but now he has a track record of this kinda of thing. He doesn't actually want change, he just wants to promote his viewpoint.
If I were a co-worker, I would be afraid to engage with the guy, because if I had a disagreement with him, I could end up as blog fodder.
At this point, McAdams is not exactly an instrument of change.
I would agree with this. I had McAdams for several classes, and would consider him a fine professor, but his crusades outside of the classroom were rarely respectful. There is absolutely a need for conservative voices on campus, especially in the College of Arts and Sciences, but he would routinely resort to personal attacks on fellow professors, and then hide behind a perceived victim status if anyone ever fought back. I think this incident and his temporary dismissal have a lot to do with his own past actions and his almost total alienation of his colleagues.
http://marquettewire.org/2014/11/25/tribune/viewpoints/reader-submission-mcadamss-treatment-of-instructor-is-deplorable/
That is his own department head (and, if you scroll into the comments, his past department heads dating back to 2000) and quite a few other MU professors in the College of Arts & Sciences chiding his actions. If anything, it shows that his colleagues and administration have little respect left for McAdams.
Edit: just to note that his past and current department heads who signed onto this letter, Dr. Barrington, Dr. Friman and Dr. McCormick (never had a class with Dr. Swank) are all far from flaming liberals. This goes well beyond some perceived liberal attack on conservative views.
-
I know you libs hate McAdams, just like you hate anyone you disagree with.
But the logic used by Marquette here demonstrates what an amateur hour leadership the school has had, for decades, even on completely non-political issues. That fact should not be controversial.
The school can't fill a Dean or Provost position to save its life. They just filled the A&S Dean position after seven years of bloopers and interims, and apparently the SLU comm professor - turned Marquette provost flopped.
Firing a tenured professor for - gasp - blogging about the discussion stifling nature of a Phil class is going to make the school look as dumb as ever as a potential employer. And that's not good even if you're a leftist.
This isn't about politics for me. I LIKE having a conservative professor on campus. It's good for MU.
But, having the guy potentially use ANYTHING/EVERYTHING as blog fodder isn't a good idea.
What if I took his class and got into a debate with him. Is he going to out me as a flaming liberal on his blog? (I'm not, BTW).
What if another professor has a professional disagreement with him, is that okay for him to take to his blog?
-
What if another professor has a professional disagreement with him, is that okay for him to take to his blog?
Jesus Christ. It's a f@cking college campus. Yes it's okay to take professional disagreements wherever the f@ck he wants. If you want a debate free campus try North Korea or Cuba.
-
Honestly, I think everyone is making far to big a deal of this...on both sides. In our rush to be the most righteous defender of our American ideals, we have conflated what McAdams did to either some sort of rabid attack that could scar a person for life or a muzzling of creative thought absolute oppression of free speech. There is nothing nearly so nefarious in anything that has gone on.
I will neither die on the hill McAdams wants to defend nor die attacking that hill with McAdams' detractors. There is nothing to be gained by turning this into a who was oppressed debate.
I will criticize all involved because it didn't need to come to any of this. The TA could and should have allowed the debate, that is what a university is for. The student could and should have taken their complaint through the proper channels. McAdams shouldn't have turned into some sort of nazi oppression of thought. Most importantly, the university should not have escalated this. Had they ignored McAdams blog(in the public eye) and discussed with him their disappoint as well as with the TA the appropriate way to handle the situation this could have been resolved without the public being aware.
Banning McAdams and suspending him did nothing but make talk radio aware of it and gave McAdams his martyr opportunity. Poor showing by the university in a personnel and "crisis" management but lets not make this incident anything more than that.
-
Jesus Christ. It's a f@cking college campus. Yes it's okay to take professional disagreements wherever the f@ck he wants. If you want a debate free campus try North Korea or Cuba.
Well, then that's where we fundamentally disagree.
I understand college campuses need to be free places for debate and exchange of ideas, and that's exactly why I DON'T want a professor taking those debates to his own personal blog.
It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.
-
Honestly, I think everyone is making far to big a deal of this...on both sides. In our rush to be the most righteous defender of our American ideals, we have conflated what McAdams did to either some sort of rabid attack that could scar a person for life or a muzzling of creative thought absolute oppression of free speech. There is nothing nearly so nefarious in anything that has gone on.
I will neither die on the hill McAdams wants to defend nor die attacking that hill with McAdams' detractors. There is nothing to be gained by turning this into a who was oppressed debate.
I will criticize all involved because it didn't need to come to any of this. The TA could and should have allowed the debate, that is what a university is for. The student could and should have taken their complaint through the proper channels. McAdams shouldn't have turned into some sort of nazi oppression of thought. Most importantly, the university should not have escalated this. Had they ignored McAdams blog(in the public eye) and discussed with him their disappoint as well as with the TA the appropriate way to handle the situation this could have been resolved without the public being aware.
Banning McAdams and suspending him did nothing but make talk radio aware of it and gave McAdams his martyr opportunity. Poor showing by the university in a personnel and "crisis" management but lets not make this incident anything more than that.
I agree with everything here, but if the TA filed a complaint, the University can't just ignore it. They have to follow the established channels.
McAdams himself says that he is only assuming that it is his blog that spurred Marquette's actions. The only ones who know for sure are the Marquette officials who are in charge of handling harassment complaints, and perhaps that complainant herself. For all we know, the TA may have asserted that McAdams said or did something else that is the basis for this action.
-
Well, then that's where we fundamentally disagree.
I understand college campuses need to be free places for debate and exchange of ideas, and that's exactly why I DON'T want a professor taking those debates to his own personal blog.
It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.
+1
A university is supposed to be a safe environment for a free-exchange of ideas. In that sense, the TA did fall short of this ideal. Whether there were was a legitimate justification for the stifling of that exchange of ideas can be debated. The way for that debate to be done is respectfully, within the university environment. The arena should not be a blog attacking the TA. It should not be AM radio 620. And when the TA files a complaint, the university has to investigate.
Finally, going the ad hominem route and calling people you disagree with fascists doesn't do much to show anyone here that you are some champion of free expression or an exchange of ideas.
-
It would likely stifle the open exchange of ideas because some people just wouldn't want the hassle of their name/likeness being used as part of his blog where they can't exactly defend themselves/viewpoint.
Holy Balls, Yossarian. Do you not understand that the McAdams' blog exists entirely because those opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS???? You want him to shut down the open-debate-is-not-allowed-on-campus blog in order to promote open debate on a campus that stifles open debate?
-
+1
A university is supposed to be a safe environment for a free-exchange of ideas. In that sense, the TA did fall short of this ideal. Whether there were was a legitimate justification for the stifling of that exchange of ideas can be debated. The way for that debate to be done is respectfully, within the university environment. The arena should not be a blog attacking the TA. It should not be AM radio 620. And when the TA files a complaint, the university has to investigate.
Finally, going the ad hominem route and calling people you disagree with fascists doesn't do much to show anyone here that you are some champion of free expression or an exchange of ideas.
Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.
-
Holy Balls, Yossarian. Do you not understand that the McAdams' blog exists entirely because those opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS???? You want him to shut down the open-debate-is-not-allowed-on-campus blog in order to promote open debate on a campus that stifles open debate?
Really??
So now it has gone from one teachers-aide not allowing one discussion to "opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS"?
-
I fully embrace your right to be an a$$hole and a fascist, by the way. The same right you won't afford anyone you disagree with.
-
Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg)
-
Stopping debate that you're afraid of and wiping out the employment of the people you hate does make you a fascist.
Really?
Now the univerisity is stopping debate and wiping out employment? The MU heirarchy is fascist. They are haters?
Get a grip on reality, dude. And if you believe this drivel you wrote, go to your job and do what McAdams did. Then you will be able to start your own blog about how the fascist haters at your company fired you unfairly.
-
Really??
So now it has gone from one teachers-aide not allowing one discussion to "opposition viewpoints ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THESE CLASSROOMS"?
Ah yes, this is an isolated incident. Marquette University and Academia in general promote the free exchange of ideas and this is an outlier.
-
I agree with everything here, but if the TA filed a complaint, the University can't just ignore it. They have to follow the established channels.
I agree that the university can't ignore the complaint and it should follow procedure, but it should for sure let McAdams know why they are taking the action they are taking. If it's for the blog shame on them, if it's for something further he said than shame on him for not saying that. If they didn't tell McAdams why they are taking the action than shame on Marquette for not handling this properly. It's not like they are unaware of McAdams propensity to take things to the interwebs.
-
Really?
Now the univerisity is stopping debate and wiping out employment? The MU heirarchy is fascist. They are haters?
Get a grip on reality, dude. And if you believe this drivel you wrote, go to your job and do what McAdams did. Then you will be able to start your own blog about how the fascist haters at your company fired you unfairly.
I don't have tenure at my job. McAdams' does. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
You can't debate McAdams' points. So you just want him fired instead. That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist.
I'm embarrassed to share a diploma from the same school as a lot of you retards.
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpjpXMFPshSYGLm/giphy.gif)
-
We all know Marquette has free reign to do what it wants about complaints.
Rape by student athletes = free pass
Independent blog criticizing the lack of free expression = fire able offense.
-
Ah yes, this is an isolated incident. Marquette University and Academia in general promote the free exchange of ideas and this is an outlier.
Dude - lose the persecution complex.
-
I don't have tenure at my job. McAdams' does. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
You can't debate McAdams' points. So you just want him fired instead. That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist.
I'm embarrassed to share a diploma from the same school as a lot of you retards.
I'm not going to get into a screaming match with you. Like McAdams, you've clearly demonstrated you can't engage in this debate in a respectful way.
-
I don't have tenure at my job. McAdams' does. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
You can't debate McAdams' points. So you just want him fired instead. That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist.
I'm embarrassed to share a diploma from the same school as a lot of you retards.
Well, I'm embarrassed to share my diploma with an individual who can't debate issues in a civil manner.
-
I don't have tenure at my job. McAdams' does. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
You can't debate McAdams' points. So you just want him fired instead. That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist.
I'm embarrassed to share a diploma from the same school as a lot of you retards.
Dude, even for internet message boards this is a little over the top. I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, but you are doing the exactly what you are accusing Marquette of.....stifling debate with an emotional and/or "my ball, my rules" attitude.
You may disagree with others in this thread, I happen to disagree with Brandx position, but that doesn't mean he is wrong or should not be allowed to argue his point.
If you have a strong, intellectual point you should be able to debate it effectively and unemotionally....you are accomplishing neither and are doing the exact same thing MU is doing. The irony is somewhat rich.
-
Yikes.
Sorry this got weird, Mods.
In before the lock, I guess.
-
I don't have tenure at my job. McAdams' does. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.
You can't debate McAdams' points. So you just want him fired instead. That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist.
I'm embarrassed to share a diploma from the same school as a lot of you retards.
Reading your argument, I really doubt if you have a diploma. The smart people that I know don't need to go to "That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist".
This is simply a man who is trying to hurt the MU brand over his personal politics. There is a history from this gentleman to show this.
If you take it upon yourself to hurt your companies brand, you absolutely will be treated worse than McAdams.
-
Yikes.
Sorry this got weird, Mods.
In before the lock, I guess.
You have nothing to apologize for.
-
We all know Marquette has free reign to do what it wants about complaints.
Rape by student athletes = free pass
Independent blog criticizing the lack of free expression = fire able offense.
way to cherry pick that one, guy
-
Yikes.
Sorry this got weird, Mods.
In before the lock, I guess.
Honestly, I don't think it should be locked, its about how MU handled this situation and we can do that as adults successfully.
I think Inferiority has an opinion who should share I'd just ask him to do it more effectively and play well in the sandbox with others. As responders we also have an opportunity to not get down in the weeds and keep it about the discussion. We can prove to the mods we can have nice things :)
(http://stephenzades.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553f041558834010537208003970b-800wi)
-
Dude - lose the persecution complex.
Oh boy. And instead of addressing the point.......oh nevermind. The lack of self-awareness is mind-numbing.
-
Reading your argument, I really doubt if you have a diploma. The smart people that I know don't need to go to "That makes you an a$$hole and a fascist".
This is simply a man who is trying to hurt the MU brand over his personal politics. There is a history from this gentleman to show this.
If you take it upon yourself to hurt your companies brand, you absolutely will be treated worse than McAdams.
I will disgree with you on this Brandx. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe McAdams' intent is to hurt MU's brand, in fact, I believe he seeks to improve it as free expression does make for a better university. Where McAdams goes wrong is the modality he chooses for his improvement and this is colored by his personal politics.
If the TA prevented a student from expressing their views on gay marriage during a discussion on gay marriage, is that a right or wrong act in your mind? If it is a wrong act, than seeking to correct it is a right act, however the method of redress could also be wrong....as IMHO I think McAdams was
-
To add to the conversation about whether or not MU unnecessarily escalated this with the suspension, take a look at the link provided by shiloh26 as well as two more links within the comments there.
http://marquettewire.org/2014/11/25/tribune/viewpoints/reader-submission-mcadamss-treatment-of-instructor-is-deplorable
http://dailynous.com/2014/11/22/letter-of-support-for-abbate-from-marquette-dept-chairs/
http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/11/open-letter-in-support-of-cheryl-abbate/comments/
Looking at all the people adding their names to these open letters in the comments, it appears to me that MU may have gotten much more pressure on this than I had previously thought. There are large numbers of faculty at Marquette and beyond taking a stand on this. That alone may have warranted a response like this (Edit: that response being an official investigation/review), even without an official complaint filed by the instructor or anyone else on campus.
-
I will disgree with you on this Brandx. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe McAdams' intent is to hurt MU's brand, in fact, I believe he seeks to improve it as free expression does make for a better university. Where McAdams goes wrong is the modality he chooses for his improvement and this is colored by his personal politics.
If the TA prevented a student from expressing their views on gay marriage during a discussion on gay marriage, is that a right or wrong act in your mind? If it is a wrong act, than seeking to correct it is a right act, however the method of redress could also be wrong....as IMHO I think McAdams was
Thanks for disagreeing respectfully.
-
To add to the conversation about whether or not MU unnecessarily escalated this with the suspension, take a look at the link provided by shiloh26 as well as two more links within the comments there.
http://marquettewire.org/2014/11/25/tribune/viewpoints/reader-submission-mcadamss-treatment-of-instructor-is-deplorable
http://dailynous.com/2014/11/22/letter-of-support-for-abbate-from-marquette-dept-chairs/
http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/11/open-letter-in-support-of-cheryl-abbate/comments/
Looking at all the people adding their names to these open letters in the comments, it appears to me that MU may have gotten much more pressure on this than I had previously thought. There are large numbers of faculty at Marquette and beyond taking a stand on this. That alone may have warranted a response like this, even without an official complaint filed by the instructor or anyone else on campus.
I don't follow, is your opinion that MU had to suspend McAdams because enough people within the academic community wanted him suspended? That's pretty much the opposite of allowing free thoughts to be exchanged. If I can get enough people to agree with me that a viewpoint shouldn't be expressed than I can have that viewpoint suppressed or punished?
-
So... question:
The mods on occasion feel the need to lock threads and put people on timeout. Are they, by definition, fascists?
I will disgree with you on this Brandx. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe McAdams' intent is to hurt MU's brand, in fact, I believe he seeks to improve it as free expression does make for a better university. Where McAdams goes wrong is the modality he chooses for his improvement and this is colored by his personal politics.
This is why punditry in general is poisonous. The fallacy of decrying your opponent for suppression of expression when you personally have no interest in genuine debate. That goes for McAdams AND the administration.
-
So... question:
The mods on occasion feel the need to lock threads and put people on timeout. Are they, by definition, fascists?
ummm, have you not been paying attention....that Rocky guy is the worst of them all.
-
I don't follow, is your opinion that MU had to suspend McAdams because enough people within the academic community wanted him suspended? That's pretty much the opposite of allowing free thoughts to be exchanged. If I can get enough people to agree with me that a viewpoint shouldn't be expressed than I can have that viewpoint suppressed or punished?
Sorry, that should have been more clear, and I've edited my post to hopefully fix that. I'm saying the pressure from a large portion of MU faculty, plus pressure from external academics, may have been enough to warrant the official review/investigation. My understanding is that the suspension is merely a component of that and would be so for any faculty member under this sort of review.
-
Additionally, McAdams himself believes the "suspension" aspect is overblown.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/12/marquettes-suspension-of-marquette.html
"The “suspension” is a bit of a joke, since it’s Christmas break and we aren’t teaching. We are only working on a manuscript, and are allowed to go to campus to do that."
-
Here is the bud of the bud and the root of the root - the majority or consensus opinion in a culture or community comes to view the marginalizing of the minority view as something that's almost logical, almost ok. At least for as long as they're in the majority, the protests from the minorities about a bigoted, unfair atmosphere are looked at as exaggerated or imagined. Things like free speech, academic freedom, etc., take on much different meaning depending on whose ox is being gored. For all but a very few politics trump principle.
-
So lemme get this straight trying to make an environment where people who are different don't have to hear hate spewed about their life is being fascist. And it's not ok to call people who say such hateful things phobic however it is ok to call the people trying to make more people feel welcome fascists?
I think here's the difference is the TA was stifling said debate to make the class feel more friendly to EVERYONE but the student and now mcadams have purely selfish reasons for wanting to get their OWN opinions out.
-
I will disgree with you on this Brandx. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe McAdams' intent is to hurt MU's brand, in fact, I believe he seeks to improve it as free expression does make for a better university. Where McAdams goes wrong is the modality he chooses for his improvement and this is colored by his personal politics.
If the TA prevented a student from expressing their views on gay marriage during a discussion on gay marriage, is that a right or wrong act in your mind? If it is a wrong act, than seeking to correct it is a right act, however the method of redress could also be wrong....as IMHO I think McAdams was
No prob. To me, it depends on whether he tried to handle this internally before putting it on his blog.
Students don't get to decide what is discussed. But if the TA initiates the discussion, then any student should be able to put their views out there. Per your example, there is a whole gamut of reasons someone may be against gay marriage from religious/moral views to bigotry or anything in between. Whether you or I - or the TA - disagrees or agrees with those views in an open discussion is not relevant.
If a student feels shut out, there are avenues to address that other than throwing bombs.
-
So lemme get this straight trying to make an environment where people who are different don't have to hear hate spewed about their life is being fascist. And it's not ok to call people who say such hateful things phobic however it is ok to call the people trying to make more people feel welcome fascists?
Saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage (at the moment that would include Pope Francis) is spewing hate and is homophobic is as intellectually dishonest as calling anti war activists anti American. Your post is an example of the "I'm right, you're evil" attitude that has polarized this country and made debate or even conversation nigh on impossible.
-
Here is the bud of the bud and the root of the root - the majority or consensus opinion in a culture or community comes to view the marginalizing of the minority view as something that's almost logical, almost ok. The protests from the minorities about a bigoted, unfair atmosphere are looked at as exaggerated or imagined. Things like free speech, academic freedom, etc., take on much different meaning depending on whose ox is being gored. For all but a very few politics trump principle.
That's all well and good, and no doubt there are instances where this is correct, but I'm having hard time grasping in this specific case what principle McAdams is standing for.
This ultimately comes down to one teaching assistant not acceding to the demands of one student regarding whether a specific issues should be discussed as part of a specific lesson in her classroom.
While we can agree or disagree whether gay marriage was an appropriate subject for that particular discussion, do we really want a campus environment wherein instructors must cede control of their classrooms to the whims of individual students, lest they be publicly vilified by co-workers and others?
I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom. Nothing in his initial blog suggests that even a little. Rather it's nothing more than a rant against a teaching assistant, and an excuse to attack faculty members with whom he's clashed before and his "liberal" enemies.
If this was a legitimate question about academic freedoms, perhaps I could cut McAdams some more leeway here. But it's not, and never was.
-
I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom.
Did you have McAdams as an instructor?
He allowed a ton of debate, even at the expense of moving the class along. He'd disagree with liberal students, but never shut them down. In fact, a former College Democrats chair is encouraging their alums to write the Dean to protest this.
-
Did you have McAdams as an instructor?
He allowed a ton of debate, even at the expense of moving the class along. He'd disagree with liberal students, but never shut them down. In fact, a former College Democrats chair is encouraging their alums to write the Dean to protest this.
Good.
At the same time, why wasn't this McAdams offering his experience moderating hot-button debates to educate a TA? Isn't that what an educator should do?
-
Saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage (at the moment that would include Pope Francis) is spewing hate and is homophobic is as intellectually dishonest as calling anti war activists anti American. Your post is an example of the "I'm right, you're evil" attitude that has polarized this country and made debate or even conversation nigh on impossible.
Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)
Non-rhetorical question:
Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?
If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.
-
This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???
"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."
I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.
While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.
**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"
-
**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"
Keefe, you've never heard of an "earth mother?"
-
Jesus Christ. It's a f@cking college campus. Yes it's okay to take professional disagreements wherever the f@ck he wants. If you want a debate free campus try North Korea or Cuba.
Do you really think your hyperbole helps your arguments?
The BEST professor I had at Marquette was Christopher Wolfe. Professor Wolfe is extremely conservative, both in his politics and in his views of his scholarly topic - the Constitution. Pretty much the exact opposite of me. On top of that his classes were A LOT of work reading a ton of court cases every week, and a final exam that consisted of filling up more than one "blue book."
But I loved him. A great professor who encouraged debate, and respected what you had to say even if you disagreed with him. And in the end, he usually "won," not because he shouted you down or because he had the last word, but because he was so...damn...smart.
OTOH, I had Nancy Snow as a professor too. I think it was her first year on the faculty. And she was the same in every single way. (Except obviously very liberal.)
I never had McAdams as a professor. Frankly I don't even know if he was there. So I have no idea if he is "good" in the same ways that I thought Wolfe and Snow were. I do know that his blog is filled with talking point after talking point. It isn't very scholarly. But I do think he has the right to have it and say what he wants.
However I do think in this case he was wrong. It isn't up to a student to determine what issue should be discussed in a class. The classroom is the teacher's domain. On top of it all it was a graduate student...not a professor.
I'm not sure what he did on his blog wrt this incident was "harassment," but it was clearly not scholarly in any sense of the word, and was also extremely unprofessional.
-
Keefe, you've never heard of an "earth mother?"
Ah, an Earth Mama. Here in the Northwest they are typically found driving Outbacks.
-
That's all well and good, and no doubt there are instances where this is correct, but I'm having hard time grasping in this specific case what principle McAdams is standing for.
This ultimately comes down to one teaching assistant not acceding to the demands of one student regarding whether a specific issues should be discussed as part of a specific lesson in her classroom.
While we can agree or disagree whether gay marriage was an appropriate subject for that particular discussion, do we really want a campus environment wherein instructors must cede control of their classrooms to the whims of individual students, lest they be publicly vilified by co-workers and others?
I'm curious whether McAdams would apply the same principles to his own classroom. I suspect he wouldn't, which is why his blog and the ensuing firestorm - handled not so well by the university, as well - is such utter nonsense.
McAdams doesn't want a serious discussion of classroom dynamics and academic freedom. Nothing in his initial blog suggests that even a little. Rather it's nothing more than a rant against a teaching assistant, and an excuse to attack faculty members with whom he's clashed before and his "liberal" enemies.
If this was a legitimate question about academic freedoms, perhaps I could cut McAdams some more leeway here. But it's not, and never was.
Exactly. If McAdams actually wants change, then be the champion of change and work with MU and it's instructors.
Instead, he went on a rant.
-
This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???
"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."
I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.
While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.
**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"
Dude, she's a 20/30-some year old graduate student. Don't compare her to someone who has the wisdom and experience of someone much older and refined. I have said from the beginning that she will likely look back on this and realize she could have handled it better.
-
I agree that the university can't ignore the complaint and it should follow procedure, but it should for sure let McAdams know why they are taking the action they are taking. If it's for the blog shame on them, if it's for something further he said than shame on him for not saying that. If they didn't tell McAdams why they are taking the action than shame on Marquette for not handling this properly. It's not like they are unaware of McAdams propensity to take things to the interwebs.
If you read his blog, he knew full well based on earlier conversations what this was about. He details previous interactions with the dean on this topic.
-
This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???
"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."
I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.
While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.
**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"
I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.
And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.
-
I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.
And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.
Ah a Ph.D. The act of learning more and more about less and less until eventually you know everything there is to know about nothing at all. Academia is so useful.
-
Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)
Non-rhetorical question:
Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?
If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.
That's a very good question. When I google the definition of marriage the first one that comes up is: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or in some jurisdictions two people of the same sex) as partnership a relationship." Definitions change and evolve. My opinion is that by definition opposition to gay marriage will be able to be considered homophobic and discriminatory at some point in the future, but due to the historical definition of marriage (and even its present one) I would say not necessarily at this precise moment. That's not to say, of course, that none of those opposed to gay marriage are discriminatory or homophobic.
-
I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.
I'd disagree based on the name of the thread. But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:
1. Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2. Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3. Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?
-
I'd disagree based on the name of the thread. But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:
1. Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2. Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3. Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?
Good questions.
1. No. Not because she should have allowed this debate, but because she didn't respond to the student's challenges appropriately. BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.
2. No. I wouldn't call it harassment, but it was clearly not professional.
3. No. They had to investigate but could have done so in a less inflammatory manner.
The whole thing is basically a clusterf*ck.
-
I'd disagree based on the name of the thread. But the issue has broken down into three intertwined questions we're trying to answer at once:
1. Did Abbate act appropriately as an instructor?
2. Did McAdams act appropriately as a faculty member?
3. Was the school's response to McAdams appropriate?
1. No
2. No
3. TBD. If they get a complaint, they should investigate. We'll see what the outcome is. But its worth noting this isn't the first crapstorm McAdams has conjured, and that needs to be taken into consideraton.
Regarding questions 1 and 2, a TA and a tenured professor should be held to completely different standards. Abbate did not act as she should, but in my opinion it should be treated a "teachable moment." On the other hand, McAdams' conduct is way out of line and simply unprofessional for a tenured professor.
-
BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.
I deliberately left that one out. As someone who sat on the curb while MPD made me pour out my illegally purchased beer, students acting inappropriately is a given.
-
Do you really think your hyperbole helps your arguments?
The BEST professor I had at Marquette was Christopher Wolfe. Professor Wolfe is extremely conservative, both in his politics and in his views of his scholarly topic - the Constitution. Pretty much the exact opposite of me. On top of that his classes were A LOT of work reading a ton of court cases every week, and a final exam that consisted of filling up more than one "blue book."
But I loved him. A great professor who encouraged debate, and respected what you had to say even if you disagreed with him. And in the end, he usually "won," not because he shouted you down or because he had the last word, but because he was so...damn...smart.
OTOH, I had Nancy Snow as a professor too. I think it was her first year on the faculty. And she was the same in every single way. (Except obviously very liberal.)
I never had McAdams as a professor. Frankly I don't even know if he was there. So I have no idea if he is "good" in the same ways that I thought Wolfe and Snow were. I do know that his blog is filled with talking point after talking point. It isn't very scholarly. But I do think he has the right to have it and say what he wants.
However I do think in this case he was wrong. It isn't up to a student to determine what issue should be discussed in a class. The classroom is the teacher's domain. On top of it all it was a graduate student...not a professor.
I'm not sure what he did on his blog wrt this incident was "harassment," but it was clearly not scholarly in any sense of the word, and was also extremely unprofessional.
+1 regarding Dr. Wolfe. I thoroughly enjoyed engaging him in argument. He seemed to appreciate a well thought out, coherent opinion that was different from his own. Class act all around who would invite students not going home for Thanksgiving to his house.
-
I don't disagree with this, but it is McAdams' conduct, and the ensuing response by the university, we are specifically debating. The instructor is a bit of a red herring.
And to Sultan's point, there are many grad students who claim to have interests in a wide variety of topics. I'm pretty sure when I was getting my MA in history I listed off classical history, church history, military history, medieval history, and european history as research topics of interest. Of course, if I was a tenured 60 year old and still considered my range of expertise to be so wide, that would be another story. You sort of whittle that down as you go.
Agreed.
And, to be fair to Abbate, I don't see her proclaiming herself an expert in any of those topics. She describes them as "research interests," which in academia isn't synonymous "fields of expertise."
-
BTW, the student didn't handle it appropriately.
From the original article:
"So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission."
At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”
A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.
Maybe we are discussing the wrong thing. A discussion of an entitled, spoiled brat who thought he could get recognition through a "gotcha" moment might be more appropriate. He learned his lessons well on "hit-and-run reporting"
-
Dude, she's a 20/30-some year old graduate student. Don't compare her to someone who has the wisdom and experience of someone much older and refined. I have said from the beginning that she will likely look back on this and realize she could have handled it better.
I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.
If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.
-
I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.
Yeah OK.
You lost me when you compare a graduate student who you think has too many research interests and didn't do a good job running her classroom, with a guy who was found guilty of killing 22 people in a massacre.
If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.
Of course. But having a professor in another department calling her out publicly on his blog isn't the best way to handle that.
-
Yeah OK.
You lost me when you compare a graduate student who you think has too many research interests and didn't do a good job running her classroom, with a guy who was found guilty of killing 22 people in a massacre.
Then you miss the point of the comparison. Though the crimes are different accountability must always be an absolute.
And it isn't about her having too many research interests....
-
This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc. It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.
Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic. The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure: The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion. To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
-Student speaks to TA after class with the intent to "catch" the TA in a poor moment in an effort to bolster his "case"
Failure: Student engaged in an adversarial way and likely in a way that was not intended to redress the issue but exacerbate it. At a minimum he was dishonest
-Student took the issue to a higher authority at the same time he made Dr. McAdams aware of the event
Failure: Student didn't follow the prescribed method for addressing his grievance
-Dr McAdams chose to take the issue up on his blog with or without engaging the proper channels
Failure: McAdams was seeking to address the situation but in a way that was going to accomplish little but inflame the situation and force the university to react
-University takes action against Dr McAdams as awareness of the situation grows
Failure: University overreacted causing the situation to become more inflamed and further complicating the matter.
Honestly, if anyone had acted like an adult at any point all the way, we don't get to where we are.
-
From the original article:
"So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission."
At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”
A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.
Maybe we are discussing the wrong thing. A discussion of an entitled, spoiled brat who thought he could get recognition through a "gotcha" moment might be more appropriate. He learned his lessons well on "hit-and-run reporting"
I agree this should be addressed, however so should the TA....neither acted appropriately in my opinion. And that is actually where I fault the university, it was a teachable moment for both the TA and the student.
-
Then you miss the point of the comparison. Though the crimes are different accountability must always be an absolute.
Uh...right. Which I acknowledged.
And it isn't about her having too many research interests....
Really???
This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???
"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."
I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals.
Oops.
-
This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc. It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.
Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic. The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure: The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion. To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
Actually she was not leading a discussion on gay marriage.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
"Earlier this year, Cheryl Abbate, the teaching assistant, was leading an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle, according to which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. To explore the idea, Abbate asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. When one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle, Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, she said in an email interview. The largest portion of the conversation centered on concealed weapons bans and various drug laws."
Clearly she didn't think it was a great example. Here is where she erred:
Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”
The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”
She should have simply said, "I didn't think the example you gave was a good one given the topic at hand," and left it at that.
-
Actually she was not leading a discussion on gay marriage.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
"Earlier this year, Cheryl Abbate, the teaching assistant, was leading an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle, according to which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. To explore the idea, Abbate asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. When one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle, Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, she said in an email interview. The largest portion of the conversation centered on concealed weapons bans and various drug laws."
Clearly she didn't think it was a great example. Here is where she erred:
Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”
The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”
She should have simply said, "I didn't think the example you gave was a good one given the topic at hand," and left it at that.
+1
-
This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc. It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.
Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic. The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure: The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion. To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
I'm not sure this is quite correct. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed story on this, the discussion was about "John Rawls’ equal liberty principle."
A student suggested that laws banning gay marriage violated the principle. According to the story, Abbate brushed past the suggestion and went on to discuss other possible violations.
She then was approached by another student afterwards (not the one who first raised the issue of gay marriage) because he believed she should have given the other student's suggestion more consideration. At least according to this account, Abbate never told any student opposed to gay marriage during class that he/she couldn't broach the subject, but rather told a different student after class that she didn't think it was an appropriate topic as part of that discussion.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
-
This whole thing is a perfect example of cascading failure, typically what happens in an airliner crash etc. It's not one event that leads to a system failure its a series cascading failures that lead to a final failure.
Here is the story as I've understood it with my opinion on the failure point:
-TA leads a discussion that involves gay marriage as a topic. The TA chooses to eliminate opposition to gay marriage as viable discussion materials based on her belief that such objection is offensive
Failure: The TA excluded contrary opinion based on her moral and ethical opinion. To exclude a viewpoint, whether its right or wrong, is suppression of free thought
-Student speaks to TA after class with the intent to "catch" the TA in a poor moment in an effort to bolster his "case"
Failure: Student engaged in an adversarial way and likely in a way that was not intended to redress the issue but exacerbate it. At a minimum he was dishonest
-Student took the issue to a higher authority at the same time he made Dr. McAdams aware of the event
Failure: Student didn't follow the prescribed method for addressing his grievance
-Dr McAdams chose to take the issue up on his blog with or without engaging the proper channels
Failure: McAdams was seeking to address the situation but in a way that was going to accomplish little but inflame the situation and force the university to react
-University takes action against Dr McAdams as awareness of the situation grows
Failure: University overreacted causing the situation to become more inflamed and further complicating the matter.
Honestly, if anyone had acted like an adult at any point all the way, we don't get to where we are.
If this were an isolated incident, then I would agree that MU is overreacting... but it seems likely that McAdams has been walking a fine line for a while, and they felt it was necessary to get their arms around this.
MU may take some heat in the media, but they have to maintain some level of control and professionalism with their staff.
-
This "instructor" has the full stew...I am intrigued how one can be an expert in animal rights, military ethics, and bioethics???
"Cheryl’s research interests are first and foremost Animal Ethics, including how Animal Ethics intersects with Animal Theology, Animal Minds, and Animal Consciousness. Cheryl also pursues research in military ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, ecofeminism, and feminist philosophy."
I work with the woman who wrote the HIPAA legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts then for the Federal government and she would laugh that anybody would dare claim expertise in so many verticals. And, as a genuine global expert on bioethics, my colleague would be deeply offended that an academician would refuse a student opportunity to articulate their views with the intellectual cowardice demonstrated by this Cheryl Abbate. Finally, as an open lesbian, my colleague would say that genuine comprehension only comes through meaningful discourse and would endorse the student's right to speak.
While the student's behavior could have been better this woman stood in a position of political and, theoretically, moral authority. The irony is that she claims to be an aspiring thought leader in ethics. I hope this Cheryl Abbate is exposed as the intellectual fraud her conduct strongly suggests she is.
**What the hell is "ecofeminsim?"
Keefe, although I have a lot of respect for your achievements, frankly this post is an embarrassment. You are making a lot of assumptions about what occurred in the class, making bold accusatory statements not supported by the known facts and you dismiss a whole area of thought/philsoophy (ecofeminism), because you haven't heard of it/disagree with it.
Shameful.
-
I agree this should be addressed, however so should the TA....neither acted appropriately in my opinion. And that is actually where I fault the university, it was a teachable moment for both the TA and the student.
I agree with your assessment.
-
Interesting conversations all around.
The one thing that seems to be accepted by most people here is that Marquette University made a mess of what should have remained a small incident.
Unfortunately, Marquette University has been making a mess of a lot of things recently and, as a result, has been losing credibility to the point that just as the totality of McAdams' individual actions has diminished him, MU's ham-handedness has done the same for the university.
With regard to the TA, her supervisor needs to be held accountable too. When I was a history TA back in the day, the escalation of such sidebar confrontations would not have been tolerated from the TA or the student.
-
Interesting conversations all around.
The one thing that seems to be accepted by most people here is that Marquette University made a mess of what should have remained a small incident.
Unfortunately, Marquette University has been making a mess of a lot of things recently and, as a result, has been losing credibility to the point that just as the totality of McAdams' individual actions has diminished him, MU's ham-handedness has done the same for the university.
With regard to the TA, her supervisor needs to be held accountable too. When I was a history TA back in the day, the escalation of such sidebar confrontations would not have been tolerated from the TA or the student.
I'm not sure the bolded part is as widely accepted as you say. I don't know the details of their policies in this arena, and I don't know the full behind-the-scenes story of the process. Without that, I'm not ready to assert that MU made a mess of it. Sometimes responses are required even if they stir up (bad?) press.
-
I'm not sure this is quite correct. From the Chronicle of Higher Ed story on this, the discussion was about "John Rawls’ equal liberty principle."
A student suggested that laws banning gay marriage violated the principle. According to the story, Abbate brushed past the suggestion and went on to discuss other possible violations.
She then was approached by another student afterwards (not the one who first raised the issue of gay marriage) because he believed she should have given the other student's suggestion more consideration. At least according to this account, Abbate never told any student opposed to gay marriage during class that he/she couldn't broach the subject, but rather told a different student after class that she didn't think it was an appropriate topic as part of that discussion.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
You are correct that the debate was not about gay marriage, but where you are incorrect is that when that topic came up the TA chose to place a value judgement on a person's opinion of gay marriage. If she had simply said that is a poor example let's moved on, you and I would be in complete agreement. However, by at a minimum, implying that opposition to gay marriage is offensive without providing an opportunity to rebut that implication is where she erred.
-
I'm not sure the bolded part is as widely accepted as you say. I don't know the details of their policies in this arena, and I don't know the full behind-the-scenes story of the process. Without that, I'm not ready to assert that MU made a mess of it. Sometimes responses are required even if they stir up (bad?) press.
Yeah, I mean part of the entire "stay off campus" thing might be standard procedure where a staff member is accused of harassing a student. That being said, Marquette might want to say something, not about the complaint itself, but the procedures in place to address it.
-
Yeah, I mean part of the entire "stay off campus" thing might be standard procedure where a staff member is accused of harassing a student. That being said, Marquette might want to say something, not about the complaint itself, but the procedures in place to address it.
The problem is, no matter what they say, McAdams is going to play the victim. MU could be doing this EXACTLY by the book, and he'd still paint them into a corner.
Now, I don't say this because I think MU is infallible or without culpability, but their options aren't exactly good.
Hopefully, McAdams takes his medicine and calms down a little bit, and then all goes away over time.
-
However, by at a minimum, implying that opposition to gay marriage is offensive without providing an opportunity to rebut that implication is where she erred.
But as far as I can tell - and I could be misinformed here - her statements about opposition to gay marriage being offensive came outside the classroom, in a one-on-one discussion with a student, not during class.
And given that setting (a private discussion), I'm not sure why she would be required to provide him an opportunity to rebut that implication.
I think it's fair to debate as to whether or not she should have brushed off the student who raised the issue during class, and whether she's right about it being an inappropriate example for that class discussion, but I think that's separate from their private conversation.
-
But as far as I can tell - and I could be misinformed here - her statements about opposition to gay marriage being offensive came outside the classroom, in a one-on-one discussion with a student, not during class.
And given that setting (a private discussion), I'm not sure why she would be required to provide him an opportunity to rebut that implication.
I think we can all make judgments as to whether or not she should have brushed off the student who raised the issue during class, and whether she's right about it being an inappropriate example for that class discussion, but I think that's separate from their private conversation.
I read the facts to be her statement about the offensive nature of the position being in the class in front of everyone. If that's not the case I would whole heartily agree with you. If her comment were made one on one, that is her opinion and she is entitled to have it and express it.
-
People just need to get over the reality that is gay marriage. It's done.
-
Saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage (at the moment that would include Pope Francis) is spewing hate and is homophobic is as intellectually dishonest as calling anti war activists anti American. Your post is an example of the "I'm right, you're evil" attitude that has polarized this country and made debate or even conversation nigh on impossible.
Ok you're right just as saying black people shouldn't have the right to vote isn't racist. Either way you're taking away a right someone has.
Anyways whoever the poster was that posted the dictionary definition to you already said what I was going to.
-
The problem is, no matter what they say, McAdams is going to play the victim. MU could be doing this EXACTLY by the book, and he'd still paint them into a corner.
Now, I don't say this because I think MU is infallible or without culpability, but their options aren't exactly good.
Which directly ties to the main part of my post. MU's long list of screw ups has limited its credibility and it makes it harder to give the university the benefit of the doubt when it, may in fact, have done the correct thing.
-
Ok you're right just as saying black people shouldn't have the right to vote isn't racist. Either way you're taking away a right someone has.
Anyways whoever the poster was that posted the dictionary definition to you already said what I was going to.
While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.
-
Which directly ties to the main part of my post. MU's long list of screw ups has limited its credibility and it makes it harder to give the university the benefit of the doubt when it, may in fact, have done the correct thing.
Fair, but for me personally, I don't have a long list of MU screw-ups that immediately come to mind.
BUT, I don't follow a lot of the decisions closely, so I have to plead ignorance.
-
The good news is that it's just a matter of time before this whole gay marriage debate goes away.
Pat Robertson says all the gays will die out eventually since they don't reproduce.
It's science.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/what-pat-robertson-predicts-gays-will-go-extinct-because-they-dont-reproduce/
-
While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.
Depends on if you are talking about secular or religious marriage. Religious marriage will likely never be gender-identification neutral. Secular marriage is largely redefined as gender identification independent. This distinction is also part of the issue at MU I believe.
-
While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.
What mu03eng said. But farther than that have you ever actually taken a step back and thought what the bible defines and/or suggests marriage should be and when it should happen? Here are some examples: a woman's rapist, her son, a mans sister or in one instance a bunch of salt (since divorce wasn't legal and God turned one guys wife into salt). So yes it's defined by the Union of a man and at least one woman in the bible but let's not act like that's exactly the moral end all be all.
-
Webster's defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (emphasis mine)
Non-rhetorical question:
Is denying a group of people a legal right based solely on their sexual orientation qualify as discrimination, or even irrational discrimination?
If so, I would think, then being against gay marriage does at least meet the dictionary definition of being homophobic.
I am a Catholic who is 100% for gay rights and believe that gay marriage be available to protect the civil freedoms that are available to all Americans.
Marquette is a Catholic university. Many students grew up in an environment that held to traditional Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church is way behind the curve on gay rights (as a lot of us know).
If professors want to teach respect for gay people, they need to teach it, not demand it. I was a believer in traditional Catholic teaching until family members came out and basically taught me how to respect their rights.
-
Man, I thought this thread was a goner 4 pages ago... Such a thrilling return to form!
-
as i am sure many of you here on this board, myself included, have long traditions here at marquette, i am really getting more and more disappointed with this administration specifically and higher education in general. i thought liberalism, political correctness and all that goes with it had plateaued. not gone away because that would be denying opposing views. but, the activism and power to truth has really bummed me out. example-the ever expanding definition of harassment and people claiming to be offended by something. it's like an intellectual game of whac-a-mole.
-
as i am sure many of you here on this board, myself included, have long traditions here at marquette, i am really getting more and more disappointed with this administration specifically and higher education in general. i thought liberalism, political correctness and all that goes with it had plateaued. not gone away because that would be denying opposing views. but, the activism and power to truth has really bummed me out. example-the ever expanding definition of harassment and people claiming to be offended by something. it's like an intellectual game of whac-a-mole.
So I guess you decided not to read the thread huh?
-
This is one of the best things I've seen written on the issue. Very fair take.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/12/behaving-badly-at-marquette-university
-
as i am sure many of you here on this board, myself included, have long traditions here at marquette, i am really getting more and more disappointed with this administration specifically and higher education in general. i thought liberalism, political correctness and all that goes with it had plateaued. not gone away because that would be denying opposing views. but, the activism and power to truth has really bummed me out. example-the ever expanding definition of harassment and people claiming to be offended by something. it's like an intellectual game of whac-a-mole.
How many talking points can be crammed in one paragraph? The only big one you forgot was to blame the media.
-
This is one of the best things I've seen written on the issue. Very fair take.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/12/behaving-badly-at-marquette-university
Yeah I can go with most of that. I still am not sure about the outlines of the harassment policy and what it entails however.
-
Yeah I can go with most of that. I still am not sure about the outlines of the harassment policy and what it entails however.
John McAdams, the Marquette University associate professor whose public criticism of a teaching assistant ignited a firestorm, has not been suspended, the university clarified in a statement Thursday.
"He is under review. He has been relieved of his teaching duties and other faculty duties," the statement said. "His salary and benefits will continue during the course of the review." Asked to clarify what would constitute a suspension, spokesman Brian Dorrington said: "Our definition of suspension is without pay."
Dorrington said he could not comment on specifics of a personnel matter under review, but he responded to general questions about whether certain types of conduct could prompt a professor to be relieved of duties.
"Under faculty conduct rules, a professor cannot be relieved of teaching duties for voicing an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class. A professor also cannot be relieved of teaching duties for having a viewpoint contrary to the university's position on a moral issue," Dorrington responded.
"We want to emphasize that all of our graduate student teaching assistants are students first. As students, they are learning their craft and it is our expectation that they are mentored and supported by our faculty," Dorrington said. "The university has clearly outlined rules of conduct, specifically as they relate to the faculty-student relationship."
Under the General Conduct section of the Employee Handbook, Dorrington said, "the rules state that behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a student is considered a violation of accepted policy and practice. The handbook also states that employees are encouraged to call attention to concerns by discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor."
McAdams said in a blog post Tuesday that he wasn't given specifics for why he was relieved of his duties while under review, and that he has secured an attorney. "Whether Marquette officials really want to punish us for blogging, or whether they simply feel the need for a pro forma 'investigation' of charges someone has brought, we don't know. Either would be gross misconduct on the part of Marquette officials."
-
John McAdams, the Marquette University associate professor whose public criticism of a teaching assistant ignited a firestorm, has not been suspended, the university clarified in a statement Thursday.
"He is under review. He has been relieved of his teaching duties and other faculty duties," the statement said. "His salary and benefits will continue during the course of the review." Asked to clarify what would constitute a suspension, spokesman Brian Dorrington said: "Our definition of suspension is without pay."
Dorrington said he could not comment on specifics of a personnel matter under review, but he responded to general questions about whether certain types of conduct could prompt a professor to be relieved of duties.
"Under faculty conduct rules, a professor cannot be relieved of teaching duties for voicing an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class. A professor also cannot be relieved of teaching duties for having a viewpoint contrary to the university's position on a moral issue," Dorrington responded.
"We want to emphasize that all of our graduate student teaching assistants are students first. As students, they are learning their craft and it is our expectation that they are mentored and supported by our faculty," Dorrington said. "The university has clearly outlined rules of conduct, specifically as they relate to the faculty-student relationship."
Under the General Conduct section of the Employee Handbook, Dorrington said, "the rules state that behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a student is considered a violation of accepted policy and practice. The handbook also states that employees are encouraged to call attention to concerns by discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor."
McAdams said in a blog post Tuesday that he wasn't given specifics for why he was relieved of his duties while under review, and that he has secured an attorney. "Whether Marquette officials really want to punish us for blogging, or whether they simply feel the need for a pro forma 'investigation' of charges someone has brought, we don't know. Either would be gross misconduct on the part of Marquette officials."
Ah so its a timeout, not a suspension.
Stupid clarification would have much rather they say nothing. Whatever
-
This is one of the best things I've seen written on the issue. Very fair take.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/12/behaving-badly-at-marquette-university
Good article (though I somewhat kind of disagree on the free exchange of ideas part). I especially like the point about calling out the student by name and potentially ruining her academic career. I think he could have made his point without naming her explicitly.
Anyway, try to keep in mind MU's delicate position here. MU cannot fire the PolSci prof because that would outrage conservative students, alums, and faculty (in addition to the hurdles involved since he is tenured). However, MU also feels that it has to respond to the chorus of left-leaning students, alums, and faculty, who are calling for some action.
If MU can make it look like it is taking the issue seriously, while only administering a light slap on the wrist, hopefully they can appease both sides until this whole thing blows over.
I don't know if this is the strategy that the MU administration is actually following or even if it is the moral one, but if it is their strategy, I can understand their rationale.
Mods, while I would completely understand if you had locked this thread up seven posts in, I applaud you for letting it run its course.
-
I especially like the point about calling out the student by name and potentially ruining her academic career. I think he could have made his point without naming her explicitly.
"We want to emphasize that all of our graduate student teaching assistants are students first. As students, they are learning their craft and it is our expectation that they are mentored and supported by our faculty," Dorrington said. "The university has clearly outlined rules of conduct, specifically as they relate to the faculty-student relationship."
Under the General Conduct section of the Employee Handbook, Dorrington said, "the rules state that behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a student is considered a violation of accepted policy and practice. The handbook also states that employees are encouraged to call attention to concerns by discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor."
This is the part that bothers me. Calling a student out publicly by name to, potentially, every person with access to a computer is a massive abuse of power.
He hit the trifecta as far as being discourteous, abusive and disrespectful to a student. A man with any dignity at all, would have gone to her supervisor to lodge a complaint if it was truly a matter where he felt a wrong had been committed.
-
this could get expen$ive...i mean really really expen$$$ive.
-
this could get expen$ive...i mean really really expen$$$ive.
Not at all. If he has a case (and I don't think he has a case at all) his maximum compensation based on precedent at other universities would be about 1.5 years salary.
-
Not at all. If he has a case (and I don't think he has a case at all) his maximum compensation based on precedent at other universities would be about 1.5 years salary.
yes, that to, butlet's not forget about the crowd on the sidelines. i'm pretty sure there are alumni on both side of this issue watching to see how marquette handles this. it could make the difference between writing that check you have always been procrastinanting. or having a good year and feeling benevolent and then...wondering what direction marquette chooses to go.
-
I would counter that age and experience is irrelevant. Lt William Calley didn't get a pass on My Lai because he was 24 years old. He was rightfully convicted because he was brutally incompetent and responsible for the crime. Unfortunately, in a deeply politically divided America, William Calley's were being given responsibility they would not otherwise have been entrusted with. While the system shared responsibility (that is another discussion) Calley was correctly held accountable.
If Cheryl Abbate is given authority she must also accept the attendant responsibility. The absence of which is defined as tyranny.
Keefe, c'mon. In today's world, very few people in authority are expected to accept responsibility, unless they are not politically correct. Then the thought police use it against them.
-
McAdams was on Fox News this morning.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3952209069001/marquette-university-professor-suspended-over-blog/?#sp=show-clips
-
yes, that to, butlet's not forget about the crowd on the sidelines. i'm pretty sure there are alumni on both side of this issue watching to see how marquette handles this. it could make the difference between writing that check you have always been procrastinanting. or having a good year and feeling benevolent and then...wondering what direction marquette chooses to go.
Which is why Marquette should have gotten ahead of it and continues to demonstrate it has no idea how to handle these situations given that they released a statement to clarify that McAdams wasn't, ya know, suspended suspended.....he's just paid to not do anything while they review what happened......
No reason to make that statement, now it's just created more fodder for the newspaper to report....OHHHHH prof is suspended but he's not suspended but he says he's suspended, must be a conspiracy lets keep reporting!!!! MU was sloppy getting to this point and has now exacerbated the issue. Hopefully they figure it out because I'd rather not have a "scandal" as stupid as this 9 months into Lovell's presidency and dampen all the enthusiasm that has created.
-
Mods, while I would completely understand if you had locked this thread up seven posts in, I applaud you for letting it run its course.
(http://i.imgur.com/uQSQ4WY.jpg)
-
Which is why Marquette should have gotten ahead of it and continues to demonstrate it has no idea how to handle these situations given that they released a statement to clarify that McAdams wasn't, ya know, suspended suspended.....he's just paid to not do anything while they review what happened......
No reason to make that statement, now it's just created more fodder for the newspaper to report....OHHHHH prof is suspended but he's not suspended but he says he's suspended, must be a conspiracy lets keep reporting!!!! MU was sloppy getting to this point and has now exacerbated the issue. Hopefully they figure it out because I'd rather not have a "scandal" as stupid as this 9 months into Lovell's presidency and dampen all the enthusiasm that has created.
well said...depends on what "is" is...lots of legalese and legal posturing, and it really didn't have to get to this point. waiting for the adults to enter the room and mediate this. a good start would be to clarify some of the wording that trys to describe harassment-that is a cluster-fluck of what? as i said previously=intellectual whac-a-mole with no winners. Go Warriors! nothing a good basketball season couldn't clear up and put this aside, at least for awhile ;D
-
Which is why Marquette should have gotten ahead of it and continues to demonstrate it has no idea how to handle these situations given that they released a statement to clarify that McAdams wasn't, ya know, suspended suspended.....he's just paid to not do anything while they review what happened......
No reason to make that statement, now it's just created more fodder for the newspaper to report....OHHHHH prof is suspended but he's not suspended but he says he's suspended, must be a conspiracy lets keep reporting!!!! MU was sloppy getting to this point and has now exacerbated the issue. Hopefully they figure it out because I'd rather not have a "scandal" as stupid as this 9 months into Lovell's presidency and dampen all the enthusiasm that has created.
Yeah I think Marquette should have let McAdams say what he said, and responded with "it's a personnel matter and therefore we cannot make a comment" or something like that, but still reinforced what brandx outlined above.
People need to get it out of their heads that he is being investigated for being a conservative. He is being investigated for being a terrible colleague and an a$$. If a liberal professor did the same thing to a conservative graduate student, I would hope Marquette takes the exact same course of action.
-
yes, that to, butlet's not forget about the crowd on the sidelines. i'm pretty sure there are alumni on both side of this issue watching to see how marquette handles this. it could make the difference between writing that check you have always been procrastinanting. or having a good year and feeling benevolent and then...wondering what direction marquette chooses to go.
Not only that, but Marquette spent years on the AAUP blacklist after it tied tenure to its Jesuit priests remaining in the priesthood. (Reaction to Maguire.)
It doesn't want to go down that road again by firing a tenured professor.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/uQSQ4WY.jpg)
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/275/936/5cd.jpg)
-
McAdams was on Fox News this morning.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3952209069001/marquette-university-professor-suspended-over-blog/?#sp=show-clips
What a crock.
First of all, the Fox host mislabels her as a "professor." Second, McAdams calls her an "instructor," which is true but doesn't correct the initial mistake. Third, the Fox guy said that the Catholic Church "runs" the University. That isn't accurate.
Why I hate the media and its slanted views (on either side.)
-
What a crock.
First of all, the Fox host mislabels her as a "professor." Second, McAdams calls her an "instructor," which is true but doesn't correct the initial mistake. Third, the Fox guy said that the Catholic Church "runs" the University. That isn't accurate.
Why I hate the media and its slanted views (on either side.)
i agree-with little pieces of fact sprinkled in with a perceived agenda doesn't bode well for anyone. although i lean toward fox, they should have made this scoop thread required reading before going on the air with mcadams-that would have been more fair n balanced. the last thing we need is a reputable outlet steering this thing to one side or the other. it(the subject at hand) should define itself based on the "rest of the story" and the chips will fall where they should fall if everyone is honest :o rather than guided by agendas, money and self interest and oh yeah, money?
-
i agree-with little pieces of fact sprinkled in with a perceived agenda doesn't bode well for anyone. although i lean toward fox, they should have made this scoop thread required reading before going on the air with mcadams-that would have been more fair n balanced. the last thing we need is a reputable outlet steering this thing to one side or the other. it(the subject at hand) should define itself based on the "rest of the story" and the chips will fall where they should fall if everyone is honest :o rather than guided by agendas, money and self interest and oh yeah, money?
And there in lies the problem....everyone is playing to a crowd these days
Having said that, while I don't defend the media lets not act like this isn't out of no where, I mean the term Yellow journalism is a thing and was created over a 100 years ago....they've been spinning for centuries. I bet the very first reporter misreported the size of the wooly mammoth that was taken down on Tuesday to sell more tablets.
-
What a crock.
First of all, the Fox host mislabels her as a "professor." Second, McAdams calls her an "instructor," which is true but doesn't correct the initial mistake. Third, the Fox guy said that the Catholic Church "runs" the University. That isn't accurate.
Why I hate the media and its slanted views (on either side.)
Jay Weber was tearing into this STUDENT today on am 1130, reading through her CV and mocking her point-by-point, claiming these aren't even real areas of study. It was just blatant ad-hominen attacks that didn't even have anything to do with the incident in question. Again, here is my biggest problem with McAdams in this situation. This is a STUDENT, and he publicly shamed her on his blog and is now taking to national media playing the victim. Under no circumstances should a STUDENT who admittedly made a mistake in the way she answered another student's question be submitted to this sort of public harassment. This should have been handled in-house. In this situation, the way McAdams and the media have acted is despicable.
-
People need to get it out of their heads that he is being investigated for being a conservative. He is being investigated for being a terrible colleague and an a$$.
He is not being investigated for being a terrible colleague. He is being investigated for being terrible to a student. That's the point that is being missed.
-
He is not being investigated for being a terrible colleague. He is being investigated for being terrible to a student. That's the point that is being missed.
Ahhh....good catch. Thanks.
-
Jay Weber was tearing into this STUDENT today on am 1130, reading through her CV online and making fun of her point-by-point, claiming these aren't even real areas of study. It was just blatant ad-hominen attacks that didn't even have anything to do with the incident in question. Again, here is my biggest problem with McAdams in this situation. This is a STUDENT, and he publicly shamed her on his blog and is now taking to national media. Under no circumstances should a STUDENT who admittedly made a mistake in the way she answered another student's question be submitted to this sort of public harassment. This should have been handled in-house. In this situation, the way McAdams and the media have acted is despicable.
Ugh. That's simply shameful.
-
And there in lies the problem....everyone is playing to a crowd these days
Having said that, while I don't defend the media lets not act like this isn't out of no where, I mean the term Yellow journalism is a thing and was created over a 100 years ago....they've been spinning for centuries. I bet the very first reporter misreported the size of the wooly mammoth that was taken down on Tuesday to sell more tablets.
I always thought the modern press was over-opinionated and bad, but one thing I learned from reading tons of books on our founding fathers was that the press was pretty ruthless in the late 1700's and early 1800's.
During Washington's presidency some of the things being said about him were pretty shocking. Jefferson (as Adams vice-president) sending things "anonymously" to Ben Franklin's grandson to put in his newspaper about Adam's. Alexander Hamilton founding the New York Post to defend The Federalists and to say mean things about Jefferson & Madison (& Alexander Burr). The very biased press was alive and well.
-
I've read this thread with great interest but I have avoided direct comment because I know a number of people who are directly involved. I will agree with 03eng from a few pages ago that many (all?) could have taken steps to deescalate the situation but I understand that I don't have enough facts to form a final judgement. This reminds me of the openly gay prospective Arts & Sciences Dean controversy from 2010. I hated that episode too. I'm now appalled that folks outside our community are now using this to further their own political agenda, whatever that may be.
For fun, I'll tell a quick John McAdams story from 34 years ago. At 8a the morning after John Lennon was assassinated, I walked into McAdams class Final. I was a political science minor and had a young McAdams as a professor probably 3 times during my MU stay. Anyway, McAdams believed that the Lennon assassination deserved an extended conversation so that's exactly what we did for the first 30 minutes of the exam period. We then proceeded with the original exam during the time remaining with John indicating that students could choose a subset of the required essays (maybe 3 out of the original 5?) because of obvious time constraints.
-
He is being investigated for being terrible to a student.
This needs to be repeated until it's pounded into everyone's head. At this point, it's not about gay marriage, classroom management, secret recordings, or academic freedom. It's about harassment of a graduate student by a faculty member.
-
This needs to be repeated until it's pounded into everyone's head. At this point, it's not about gay marriage, classroom management, secret recordings, or academic freedom. It's about harassment of a graduate student by a faculty member.
Bingo.
It's not political.
Step back and look at how a senior professor treated another colleague/student.
Not appropriate.
-
This needs to be repeated until it's pounded into everyone's head. At this point, it's not about gay marriage, classroom management, secret recordings, or academic freedom. It's about harassment of a graduate student by a faculty member.
Separate from this situation, Academia is a competitive and sometimes brutal world. There are only so many tenured positions available. Maybe a graduate TA should not be treated this way, but as she moves up the ranks she will need to deal with worse. Most of it will not be out in the open for all to see either.
-
While you're going to your dictionary don't forget that marriage was defined forever as exclusively the union between a man and a woman. That definition is evolving and I think that's a good thing - but it hasn't evolved completely yet, and you can look that up.
No, no it was not. Marriage was also originally defined as polygamy too.
-
Ah a Ph.D. The act of learning more and more about less and less until eventually you know everything there is to know about nothing at all. Academia is so useful.
Yeah, not like law school, which, as we all know, produces nothing but useful members of society.
-
Jay Weber was tearing into this STUDENT today on am 1130, reading through her CV and mocking her point-by-point, claiming these aren't even real areas of study. It was just blatant ad-hominen attacks that didn't even have anything to do with the incident in question. Again, here is my biggest problem with McAdams in this situation. This is a STUDENT, and he publicly shamed her on his blog and is now taking to national media playing the victim. Under no circumstances should a STUDENT who admittedly made a mistake in the way she answered another student's question be submitted to this sort of public harassment. This should have been handled in-house. In this situation, the way McAdams and the media have acted is despicable.
#1) Why are you listening to 1130? Don't you remember the Simpsons halloween episode where the mascots started attacking the city? If you don't stop listening and/or talking about it, it won't go away.
#2) The "student" is an adult. And part of being a responsible adult is understanding that everything you say and do in public is subject to spin, scrutiny, & shame. She made a mistake, but even mistakes have consequences. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but unfortunately, it's a cost of our society. If you don't like it, then start a petition to repeal the 1st Amendment or move to a country where they filter the Internet.
#3) The "student" has a right to take a position on a subject. McAdams has a right to take a position on someone else's words/actions, whether it's a Marquette student or a UW-Madison student. The media has a right to report on the matter. Freedom of speech is a two-way street... actually, it's more like the Marquette interchange: a cluster of lanes going in every direction you could possibly want... and like the Marquette interchange, every once in a while someone gets on going the wrong way (whether drunk, ignorant or lost) and ends up unintentionally making life a whole lot more difficult for everyone around him/her than he/she could ever have anticipated.
Moral of the story: Who the fu@k knows.
For the record: Benny is a fiscally conservative socially liberal utilitarian non-evangelizing practicing Catholic whose personal dictum is suum cuique.
-
Most of it will not be out in the open for all to see either.
That's the difference.
If McAdam's wants to be an a-hole behind closed doors, then whatever, he's just the office a-hole. It happens.
Can't take this stuff public.
-
#1) Why are you listening to 1130? Don't you remember the Simpsons halloween episode where the mascots started attacking the city? If you don't stop listening and/or talking about it, it won't go away.
#2) The "student" is an adult. And part of being a responsible adult is understanding that everything you say and do in public is subject to spin, scrutiny, & shame. She made a mistake, but even mistakes have consequences. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but unfortunately, it's a cost of our society. If you don't like it, then start a petition to repeal the 1st Amendment or move to a country where they filter the Internet.
#3) The "student" has a right to take a position on a subject. McAdams has a right to take a position on someone else's words/actions, whether it's a Marquette student or a UW-Madison student. The media has a right to report on the matter. Freedom of speech is a two-way street... actually, it's more like the Marquette interchange: a cluster of lanes going in every direction you could possibly want... and like the Marquette interchange, every once in a while someone gets on going the wrong way (whether drunk, ignorant or lost) and ends up unintentionally making life a whole lot more difficult for everyone around him/her than he/she could ever have anticipated.
Moral of the story: Who the fu@k knows.
For the record: Benny is a fiscally conservative socially liberal utilitarian non-evangelizing practicing Catholic whose personal dictum is suum cuique.
This topic has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It has everything to do with the professional conduct of a professor.
-
#1) Why are you listening to 1130? Don't you remember the Simpsons halloween episode where the mascots started attacking the city? If you don't stop listening and/or talking about it, it won't go away.
#2) The "student" is an adult. And part of being a responsible adult is understanding that everything you say and do in public is subject to spin, scrutiny, & shame. She made a mistake, but even mistakes have consequences. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but unfortunately, it's a cost of our society. If you don't like it, then start a petition to repeal the 1st Amendment or move to a country where they filter the Internet.
#3) The "student" has a right to take a position on a subject. McAdams has a right to take a position on someone else's words/actions, whether it's a Marquette student or a UW-Madison student. The media has a right to report on the matter. Freedom of speech is a two-way street... actually, it's more like the Marquette interchange: a cluster of lanes going in every direction you could possibly want... and like the Marquette interchange, every once in a while someone gets on going the wrong way (whether drunk, ignorant or lost) and ends up unintentionally making life a whole lot more difficult for everyone around him/her than he/she could ever have anticipated.
Moral of the story: Who the fu@k knows.
For the record: Benny is a fiscally conservative socially liberal utilitarian non-evangelizing practicing Catholic whose personal dictum is suum cuique.
1) I'm slightly masochistic. And I also like to try to at least hear where the other side is coming from. However, this is probably counter productive because 1130 presents the extreme wing of the other side, which probably isn't fair for me to take as representative as your typical conservative or Republican. Duly noted.
2) Of course she is an adult, but part of Marquette's mission is to provide a safe learning environment for its students. McAdams' actions fly directly in the face of that mission. Don't know why you are using quotes around student. She is a student and per Marquette's statement on the issue that is the reason this is being taken so seriously. For the record, almost every student at Marquette is an adult.
3) I'm not questioning anyone's constitutional rights here. Of course the student had a right to take a position. And of course McAdams has a right to act like an unprofessional jerk. And the media has a constitutional right to report on it honestly (lies are not constitutionally protected free speech, and calling the student a professor is not honest). I'm not saying anyone here has acted unlawfully. But McAdams doesn't have a constitutional right to keep his job for acting woefully unprofessional. A job which, by the way, he hasn't even lost. He is continuing to collect a paycheck, and calls this "being treated like a terrorist." Hard to take any of that seriously.
-
The "student" has a right to take a position on a subject. McAdams has a right to take a position on someone else's words/actions, whether it's a Marquette student or a UW-Madison student. The media has a right to report on the matter. Freedom of speech is a two-way street... actually, it's more like the Marquette interchange: a cluster of lanes going in every direction you could possibly want... and like the Marquette interchange, every once in a while someone gets on going the wrong way (whether drunk, ignorant or lost) and ends up unintentionally making life a whole lot more difficult for everyone around him/her than he/she could ever have anticipated.
This isn't a first amendment issue at all. This is an issue of professional ethics. I would argue that the faculty member is probably violating the AAUP's guidelines on professional ethics:
As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.
This may or may not be a serious issue for the MU administration, and I honestly doubt any real punishment will come from it, but if the grad student was wrong (not saying she was--I do not permit certain things in my classes, and I will not allow students to take the discussion in unproductive directions), the faculty member should certainly know better.
-
This topic has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It has everything to do with the professional conduct of a professor.
+1 you beat me to it.
-
I'm loving this discussion. A lot of people taking different routes to the same conclusions on both sides of the issue. Do the ends justify the means? Do the means justify the ends?
It's almost like we should have some sort of class for students to explore this stuff!
A lot of talk about the rules governing student and faculty conduct. Does anyone know if there's a set of guidelines or a university conduct policy specific to student teaching? From what we've discussed, Abbate looks kinda stuck in limbo between professor and pupil.
-
No, no it was not. Marriage was also originally defined as polygamy too.
You are correct. That said, the qualified inclusion of "same sex" is very much new to the definition.
-
A lot of talk about the rules governing student and faculty conduct. Does anyone know if there's a set of guidelines or a university conduct policy specific to student teaching? From what we've discussed, Abbate looks kinda stuck in limbo between professor and pupil.
Abbate is a STUDENT who teaches a class. There probably are specific guidelines for TA conduct, and in all likelihood, she probably did not follow them in the original incident. She made a mistake.
But again, the bigger issue here is McAdams' unprofessional conduct towards a STUDENT. I'm going to continue capitalizing it until it is hammered into everyone's brain that Abbate is a STUDENT.
-
Jay Weber was tearing into this STUDENT today on am 1130, reading through her CV and mocking her point-by-point, claiming these aren't even real areas of study. It was just blatant ad-hominen attacks that didn't even have anything to do with the incident in question. Again, here is my biggest problem with McAdams in this situation. This is a STUDENT, and he publicly shamed her on his blog and is now taking to national media playing the victim. Under no circumstances should a STUDENT who admittedly made a mistake in the way she answered another student's question be submitted to this sort of public harassment. This should have been handled in-house. In this situation, the way McAdams and the media have acted is despicable.
And, as is usual in these cases, she will get a ton of emails that are a lot worse than anything Weber said today.
-
Wow! I commend everyone here - almost all of whom have made this thread a very interesting read. We (myself included) certainly have our lows on this board at times, but this is the opposite.
It's like we all became little "Canned Goods n Ammos" during this discussion. (I use him because he is probably the most consistently rational person on this board.)
-
Abbate is a STUDENT who teaches a class. There probably are specific guidelines for TA conduct, and in all likelihood, she probably did not follow them in the original incident. She made a mistake.
But again, the bigger issue here is McAdams' unprofessional conduct towards a STUDENT. I'm going to continue capitalizing it until it is hammered into everyone's brain that Abbate is a STUDENT.
I think this is where we're seeing the most disagreement among people with similar mindsets. My fear is that the perception of magnitude will result in the "biggest" issue (or likely the one receiving the most attention) being addressed while the two or three "minor" issues get swept under the rug. Each level must be addressed or else the little issues will become the big issue down the road.
It's like we all became little "Canned Goods n Ammos" during this discussion. (I use him because he is probably the most consistently rational person on this board.)
+1. Do what you do, Ammo. Even if I disagree with you this time.
-
Wow! I commend everyone here - almost all of whom have made this thread a very interesting read. We (myself included) certainly have our lows on this board at times, but this is the opposite.
It's like we all became little "Canned Goods n Ammos" during this discussion. (I use him because he is probably the most consistently rational person on this board.)
except for the asshat that had to use "Websters dictionary defines..."
-
As a former GA/TA at Marquette, I can tell you that my interactions with professors were always collegial. I wasn't a "student" to them, I was an assistant (the "A" in GA and TA), and ignoring the usual pejorative nature of that word, I was treated as such. Even when I would work with other professors to whom I was neither assigned for work nor class, the rapport was always more along the lines of equals than that of a typical student-instructor relationship.
At the risk of repeating a cliche twice in one thread (on one page, no less), it's a two-way street. It is my understanding that McAdams was not being critical of a "student," he was being critical of the student's decision(s)/elections(s) in her role as a TA. How many times have we as parents told our children (or had our parents tell us), "if you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like an adult." If the student wants to be treated like a TA, she needs to act like a TA, and acting like a TA means that you are not a "student" when you're fulfilling your role as a TA. I know that human nature is to paint victims in the most sympathetic light possible, but a "student" is not the protagonist here. The TA is the protagonist.
Apply this to a different situation... what if one of the cops at the subject of recent controversies volunteered for terminally-ill children at the hospital? Would the protesters have just let it go? Of course not, because people were upset with what the cop did in his role as a uniformed police officer, not as a hospital volunteer.
I'm not saying what McAdams did was right; I am also not defending McAdams by any stretch. But if you're upset that McAdams acted unprofessionally toward a student, let me ask whether you'd be equally upset if McAdams acted in the same manner towards another professor or contemporary, be it at Marquette, Notre Dame or MATC?
If you can't make the argument without having to spin what is otherwise a material distinction in someone's role, then your argument itself is going to get rolled.
-
Yeah, not like law school, which, as we all know, produces nothing but useful members of society.
Touche. I've been advocating for the closing of all but about 50 law schools nationwide (unfortunately MU would be one of them) for a while now. Nothing positive comes out of law schools.
-
As a former GA/TA at Marquette, I can tell you that my interactions with professors were always collegial. I wasn't a "student" to them, I was an assistant (the "A" in GA and TA), and ignoring the usual pejorative nature of that word, I was treated as such. Even when I would work with other professors to whom I was neither assigned for work nor class, the rapport was always more along the lines of equals than that of a typical student-instructor relationship.
At the risk of repeating a cliche twice in one thread (on one page, no less), it's a two-way street. It is my understanding that McAdams was not being critical of a "student," he was being critical of the student's decision(s)/elections(s) in her role as a TA. How many times have we as parents told our children (or had our parents tell us), "if you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like an adult." If the student wants to be treated like a TA, she needs to act like a TA, and acting like a TA means that you are not a "student" when you're fulfilling your role as a TA. I know that human nature is to paint victims in the most sympathetic light possible, but a "student" is not the protagonist here. The TA is the protagonist.
Apply this to a different situation... what if one of the cops at the subject of recent controversies volunteered for terminally-ill children at the hospital? Would the protesters have just let it go? Of course not, because people were upset with what the cop did in his role as a uniformed police officer, not as a hospital volunteer.
I'm not saying what McAdams did was right; I am also not defending McAdams by any stretch. But if you're upset that McAdams acted unprofessionally toward a student, let me ask whether you'd be equally upset if McAdams acted in the same manner towards another professor or contemporary, be it at Marquette, Notre Dame or MATC?
If you can't make the argument without having to spin what is otherwise a material distinction in someone's role, then your argument itself is going to get rolled.
As someone who has both been a TA and has supervised dozens of them, I can say that no matter how we think of them (some of my graduate assistants I've considered as equals because of the quality of their work and their maturity; others, not so much), the administration of the university very much thinks of them as students, regardless of their teaching responsibilities. There is a significant power differential between faculty and students, and so no, I wouldn't be as upset if McAdams acted that way towards a colleague. He would be an uncollegial asshat, most likely, but there are thousands of them in academia, so whatever-- it's perfectly within his rights to be one. But the distinction between faculty and graduate students who teach is more than just semantics; other faculty have resources to fight back that graduate students simply do not have, and McAdams used his position of power as a tenured faculty member to go after a student publicly.
This power differential is also why most universities have policies in place about faculty sleeping with their students. The same protections are not in place for faculty sleeping with colleagues because they aren't needed.
McAdams did nothing illegal; if the university chooses to punish him, it will be because he violated the expectations for professional behavior adopted by the university. I don't think the university will do anything.
-
At the risk of repeating a cliche twice in one thread (on one page, no less), it's a two-way street. It is my understanding that McAdams was not being critical of a "student," he was being critical of the student's decision(s)/elections(s) in her role as a TA. How many times have we as parents told our children (or had our parents tell us), "if you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like an adult." If the student wants to be treated like a TA, she needs to act like a TA, and acting like a TA means that you are not a "student" when you're fulfilling your role as a TA. I know that human nature is to paint victims in the most sympathetic light possible, but a "student" is not the protagonist here. The TA is the protagonist.
You've got it all wrong here, Benny. I don't think anyone here (maybe I'm wrong) is critical of McAdams for disagreeing with a TA's teaching methods. He is a tenured professor and should speak up if he thinks mistakes are made.
What we are all saying is that it is his method that is wrong. If he had followed the normal protocol, there would have been no issue - we would probably not even have known about it - but he didn't.
Instead, clamoring for attention for his political views, he went to his blog and put a TA's name out there. In my mind, that, and that alone, is grounds for severe censure or termination.
-
As a former GA/TA at Marquette, I can tell you that my interactions with professors were always collegial. I wasn't a "student" to them, I was an assistant (the "A" in GA and TA), and ignoring the usual pejorative nature of that word, I was treated as such. Even when I would work with other professors to whom I was neither assigned for work nor class, the rapport was always more along the lines of equals than that of a typical student-instructor relationship.
At the risk of repeating a cliche twice in one thread (on one page, no less), it's a two-way street. It is my understanding that McAdams was not being critical of a "student," he was being critical of the student's decision(s)/elections(s) in her role as a TA. How many times have we as parents told our children (or had our parents tell us), "if you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like an adult." If the student wants to be treated like a TA, she needs to act like a TA, and acting like a TA means that you are not a "student" when you're fulfilling your role as a TA. I know that human nature is to paint victims in the most sympathetic light possible, but a "student" is not the protagonist here. The TA is the protagonist.
Apply this to a different situation... what if one of the cops at the subject of recent controversies volunteered for terminally-ill children at the hospital? Would the protesters have just let it go? Of course not, because people were upset with what the cop did in his role as a uniformed police officer, not as a hospital volunteer.
I'm not saying what McAdams did was right; I am also not defending McAdams by any stretch. But if you're upset that McAdams acted unprofessionally toward a student, let me ask whether you'd be equally upset if McAdams acted in the same manner towards another professor or contemporary, be it at Marquette, Notre Dame or MATC?
If you can't make the argument without having to spin what is otherwise a material distinction in someone's role, then your argument itself is going to get rolled.
Thanks for the insight, Benny. In this case, I'd argue it's not a material distinction. They have their feet firmly in both worlds. Professors treating them as peers is necessary in developing their professional acumen, but they still need the protections offered to those seeking a degree. By comparison, if we applied the standard you're setting to medicine, I'd be amazed if any physician made it past their residency.
-
As a former GA/TA at Marquette, I can tell you that my interactions with professors were always collegial. I wasn't a "student" to them, I was an assistant (the "A" in GA and TA), and ignoring the usual pejorative nature of that word, I was treated as such. Even when I would work with other professors to whom I was neither assigned for work nor class, the rapport was always more along the lines of equals than that of a typical student-instructor relationship.
At the risk of repeating a cliche twice in one thread (on one page, no less), it's a two-way street. It is my understanding that McAdams was not being critical of a "student," he was being critical of the student's decision(s)/elections(s) in her role as a TA. How many times have we as parents told our children (or had our parents tell us), "if you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like an adult." If the student wants to be treated like a TA, she needs to act like a TA, and acting like a TA means that you are not a "student" when you're fulfilling your role as a TA. I know that human nature is to paint victims in the most sympathetic light possible, but a "student" is not the protagonist here. The TA is the protagonist.
Apply this to a different situation... what if one of the cops at the subject of recent controversies volunteered for terminally-ill children at the hospital? Would the protesters have just let it go? Of course not, because people were upset with what the cop did in his role as a uniformed police officer, not as a hospital volunteer.
I'm not saying what McAdams did was right; I am also not defending McAdams by any stretch. But if you're upset that McAdams acted unprofessionally toward a student, let me ask whether you'd be equally upset if McAdams acted in the same manner towards another professor or contemporary, be it at Marquette, Notre Dame or MATC?
If you can't make the argument without having to spin what is otherwise a material distinction in someone's role, then your argument itself is going to get rolled.
Well said, Benny
-
As someone who has both been a TA and has supervised dozens of them, I can say that no matter how we think of them (some of my graduate assistants I've considered as equals because of the quality of their work and their maturity; others, not so much), the administration of the university very much thinks of them as students, regardless of their teaching responsibilities. There is a significant power differential between faculty and students, and so no, I wouldn't be as upset if McAdams acted that way towards a colleague. He would be an uncollegial asshat, most likely, but there are thousands of them in academia, so whatever-- it's perfectly within his rights to be one. But the distinction between faculty and graduate students who teach is more than just semantics; other faculty have resources to fight back that graduate students simply do not have, and McAdams used his position of power as a tenured faculty member to go after a student publicly.
This power differential is also why most universities have policies in place about faculty sleeping with their students. The same protections are not in place for faculty sleeping with colleagues because they aren't needed.
McAdams did nothing illegal; if the university chooses to punish him, it will be because he violated the expectations for professional behavior adopted by the university. I don't think the university will do anything.
You have summarized my views far more eloquently than I could have.
-
You've got it all wrong here, Benny. I don't think anyone here (maybe I'm wrong) is critical of McAdams for disagreeing with a TA's teaching methods. He is a tenured professor and should speak up if he thinks mistakes are made.
What we are all saying is that it is his method that is wrong. If he had followed the normal protocol, there would have been no issue - we would probably not even have known about it - but he didn't.
Instead, clamoring for attention for his political views, he went to his blog and put a TA's name out there. In my mind, that, and that alone, is grounds for severe censure or termination.
Do we know if McAdams sought redress prior to his blog post?
-
Do we know if McAdams sought redress prior to his blog post?
It sounded to me like he was in a hurry to publish it. He gave Abbate exactly one day to respond to an email he sent (on a Sunday) asking permission to use her name. When she did not respond, he went ahead and did it anyway.
Whether he tried to go through university channels, I don't know, but given his haste to get his blog post out there it makes you wonder...
-
I would think that if he went through proper channels to address it, that would have been brought up by McAdams himself. I mean, if the department chair ignored it that would be more fuel for the fire right?
-
Do we know if McAdams sought redress prior to his blog post?
See Bleuteaux & Sultan's answer.
-
Having never read McAdams blog before, does he always refer to himself in the plural third person?
-
I went back and re-read the original blog post that started this whole thing, and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a bunch of people on all sides getting their backs up over nothing.
I think if McAdams didn't use the TA's name, this would have been nothing. McAdam's shouldn't have identified her, but I don't think he's attacking her and he is using this scenario to attack a broader point (which may or may not be legitimate but is something worth discussion). He spends almost as much time attacking the college leadership as he does conveying the events in the classroom itself.
Maybe I'm being insensitive but I think this is a series of minor errors that added up to an unnecessary black eye. TA shouldn't have said what she said. Student shouldn't have been so reactionary/gotcha. McAdams shouldn't have used the TA's name and he used the blog to influence the leadership decision(IMHO).
-
i think what mcadams has been trying to do since 2005(?) is provide some balance to the notion held by many that our educational system is fraught with indoctrination and liberalism. having said that, it remains to be seen if he hurt or helped his cause. this may not be his shining moment, i am not sure as will depend on "conventional wisdom" moving forward. but it sure is creating dialogue. in other countries, they just take you out back and...
-
Having never read McAdams blog before, does he always refer to himself in the plural third person?
Yep. I think it stems from the concept of editorial boards writing using the same plural third person construction.
-
I went back and re-read the original blog post that started this whole thing, and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a bunch of people on all sides getting their backs up over nothing.
I think if McAdams didn't use the TA's name, this would have been nothing. McAdam's shouldn't have identified her, but I don't think he's attacking her and he is using this scenario to attack a broader point (which may or may not be legitimate but is something worth discussion). He spends almost as much time attacking the college leadership as he does conveying the events in the classroom itself.
Maybe I'm being insensitive but I think this is a series of minor errors that added up to an unnecessary black eye. TA shouldn't have said what she said. Student shouldn't have been so reactionary/gotcha. McAdams shouldn't have used the TA's name and he used the blog to influence the leadership decision(IMHO).
Many of McAdams' problems come from his blunt delivery and unapologetic methods. His demeanor doesn't help his cause.
-
i think what mcadams has been trying to do since 2005(?) is provide some balance to the notion held by many that our educational system is fraught with indoctrination and liberalism.
Two thoughts:
1. I think you are right about McAdams intentions and about the effectiveness about his intentions. He uses a lot of language that labels people and ideas..."liberal" and "politically correct" for instance. My rule of thumb is that when anyone starts using labels on either side, it means that the fundamentals of their arguments are flawed. Then you are resorting to preaching to a choir - not actually trying to change anything. As lawwwarrior12 points out, that blunt delivery isn't effective as being an agent of change.
2. My anecdotal experience is that higher education isn't "fraught with indoctrination and liberalism." I think it is obvious that most professors are liberal. But I would argue that relatively few are overtly so, and even less try to "indoctrinate."
-
i think what mcadams has been trying to do since 2005(?) is provide some balance to the notion held by many that our educational system is fraught with indoctrination and liberalism. having said that, it remains to be seen if he hurt or helped his cause. this may not be his shining moment, i am not sure as will depend on "conventional wisdom" moving forward. but it sure is creating dialogue. in other countries, they just take you out back and...
Most all of western society's intellectual development and expansion is because of liberalism expanding conversation beyond what was allowed, so not sure why this is always surprising. Some conservative ideas/arguments are generally rejected because they are not based in any fact or reality and thus have no place in what we call "education". Think transexualism and climate change as issues that some conservatives believe they are "censored" on.
-
i think what mcadams has been trying to do since 2005(?) is provide some balance to the notion held by many that our educational system is fraught with indoctrination and liberalism. having said that, it remains to be seen if he hurt or helped his cause. this may not be his shining moment, i am not sure as will depend on "conventional wisdom" moving forward. but it sure is creating dialogue. in other countries, they just take you out back and...
Are you saying Marquette is liberal? When I went onto that campus I was blown away with how conservative it was and nearly transferred my freshman year. I think professors tend to be more progressive because they are dedicated to the expansion of knowledge and discussing new ideas. Which is more of a liberal thing which is why there may be a perception that most professors are liberal but personally that's not the vibe I got at all.
-
Two thoughts:
1. I think you are right about McAdams intentions and about the effectiveness about his intentions. He uses a lot of language that labels people and ideas..."liberal" and "politically correct" for instance. My rule of thumb is that when anyone starts using labels on either side, it means that the fundamentals of their arguments are flawed. Then you are resorting to preaching to a choir - not actually trying to change anything. As lawwwarrior12 points out, that blunt delivery isn't effective as being an agent of change.
2. My anecdotal experience is that higher education isn't "fraught with indoctrination and liberalism." I think it is obvious that most professors are liberal. But I would argue that relatively few are overtly so, and even less try to "indoctrinate."
I tend to agree with you here. The classroom is not a free public forum; it is, rather, a limited public forum, and the instructor is the moderator. My classroom is not the students' soapbox, nor is it mine. I do not let students say racist, offensive, or homophobic remarks in my classroom not because I'm a liberal who wants to suppress any opinion but my own, but because such remarks create an ineffective learning environment (and because they are usually not arguments but rather ad hominem attacks with virtually no evidence to support them). I also don't allow students to make ad hominem arguments against conservatives.
Having taught for many years, I will say that nothing incites the dudgeon of a student more than being told, "we're not talking about that now. We're moving on to another topic." But without the power to do that as a professor, every class would degenerate into a shapeless mass of expressed opinions where the mere fact of expressing an opinion becomes more important than careful analysis of claims and evidence.
-
Are you saying Marquette is liberal? When I went onto that campus I was blown away with how conservative it was and nearly transferred my freshman year. I think professors tend to be more progressive because they are dedicated to the expansion of knowledge and discussing new ideas. Which is more of a liberal thing which is why there may be a perception that most professors are liberal but personally that's not the vibe I got at all.
The liberal/conservative thing is relative. I honestly think as far as academia goes MU is right in the middle.
Yes, its more conservative than a state school.
But it is far more progressive or liberal then a lot of Christian/Catholic colleges.
Of course, this completely depends on your opinion, but I think MU is the Goldilocks college. Just right. The fact that we are even having this discussion, with opinions from both sides, in a civil manner, tells me that.
-
Are you saying Marquette is liberal? When I went onto that campus I was blown away with how conservative it was and nearly transferred my freshman year. I think professors tend to be more progressive because they are dedicated to the expansion of knowledge and discussing new ideas. Which is more of a liberal thing which is why there may be a perception that most professors are liberal but personally that's not the vibe I got at all.
i'll choose to take the 5th and allow some of the more "tenured" members of this board take that one on if they so choose. i will say however, my experience at mu could probably be summed up with the squeaky wheel theory ;D
-
I tend to agree with you here. The classroom is not a free public forum; it is, rather, a limited public forum, and the instructor is the moderator. My classroom is not the students' soapbox, nor is it mine. I do not let students say racist, offensive, or homophobic remarks in my classroom not because I'm a liberal who wants to suppress any opinion but my own, but because such remarks create an ineffective learning environment (and because they are usually not arguments but rather ad hominem attacks with virtually no evidence to support them). I also don't allow students to make ad hominem arguments against conservatives.
Having taught for many years, I will say that nothing incites the dudgeon of a student more than being told, "we're not talking about that now. We're moving on to another topic." But without the power to do that as a professor, every class would degenerate into a shapeless mass of expressed opinions where the mere fact of expressing an opinion becomes more important than careful analysis of claims and evidence.
Beautifully stated.
-
Are you saying Marquette is liberal? When I went onto that campus I was blown away with how conservative it was and nearly transferred my freshman year. I think professors tend to be more progressive because they are dedicated to the expansion of knowledge and discussing new ideas. Which is more of a liberal thing which is why there may be a perception that most professors are liberal but personally that's not the vibe I got at all.
If you don't mind me asking, when were you a student at MU, and what was your major?
I did not have the experience that it was very conservative and am wondering if it was a departmental or different time period thing.
-
I do not let students say racist, offensive, or homophobic remarks in my classroom not because I'm a liberal who wants to suppress any opinion but my own, but because such remarks create an ineffective learning environment (and because they are usually not arguments but rather ad hominem attacks with virtually no evidence to support them). I also don't allow students to make ad hominem arguments against conservatives.
The problem is that the teacher's politics, religion, etc. can alter what he or she considers racist, offensive, homophobic, etc. I side with social liberals on gay marriage and most other "rights" issues but am still uncomfortable with the labels (homophobic, racist, offensive) they reflexively assign to any who take an opposing viewpoint.
-
i think what mcadams has been trying to do since 2005(?) is provide some balance to the notion held by many that our educational system is fraught with indoctrination and liberalism. having said that, it remains to be seen if he hurt or helped his cause. this may not be his shining moment, i am not sure as will depend on "conventional wisdom" moving forward. but it sure is creating dialogue. in other countries, they just take you out back and...
I like the idea of a guy like McAdams... but the actual guy may have jumped the shark (for me personally).
I can think of several times where I really wanted to agree with him, but he often ramps up the "conservationism" to a point that's almost absurd.
I like a well stated conservative point of view, but I'm afraid McAdams isn't providing that. He's created a soapbox, and he's looking for reasons to get jump up on it. It ruins his credibility with me.
-
The problem is that the teacher's politics, religion, etc. can alter what he or she considers racist, offensive, homophobic, etc. I side with social liberals on gay marriage and most other "rights" issues but am still uncomfortable with the labels (homophobic, racist, offensive) they reflexively assign to any who take an opposing viewpoint.
You are correct, but at some point we have to trust our instructor's judgement.
That's not to say that every instructor is infallible, but the classroom can't be anarchy either.
-
If you don't mind me asking, when were you a student at MU, and what was your major?
I did not have the experience that it was very conservative and am wondering if it was a departmental or different time period thing.
09/10 to last year. Started as political science and psych then moved over to advertising.
-
The problem is that the teacher's politics, religion, etc. can alter what he or she considers racist, offensive, homophobic, etc. I side with social liberals on gay marriage and most other "rights" issues but am still uncomfortable with the labels (homophobic, racist, offensive) they reflexively assign to any who take an opposing viewpoint.
True, to an extent, though there are some things that are pretty clearly racist/sexist (derogatory terms for minorities and women) and some that are borderline. Also, to be clear, when I speak of these terms, I'm not talking about how I react to them; I'm talking about their likely effect on the other students in the class, who have the same right to an education as the person speaking. I tend to let the borderline ones go, as long as they are germane to the discussion and I trust other students will jump in to counter.
But I do know from years of experience what kinds of things will shut down discussion or take it in a unproductive direction, and I'm not going down that road.
-
True, to an extent, though there are some things that are pretty clearly racist/sexist (derogatory terms for minorities and women) and some that are borderline. Also, to be clear, when I speak of these terms, I'm not talking about how I react to them; I'm talking about their likely effect on the other students in the class, who have the same right to an education as the person speaking. I tend to let the borderline ones go, as long as they are germane to the discussion and I trust other students will jump in to counter.
But I do know from years of experience what kinds of things will shut down discussion or take it in a unproductive direction, and I'm not going down that road.
You impress me as a good teacher.
-
Having taught for many years, I will say that nothing incites the dudgeon of a student more than being told, "we're not talking about that now. We're moving on to another topic." But without the power to do that as a professor, every class would degenerate into a shapeless mass of expressed opinions where the mere fact of expressing an opinion becomes more important than careful analysis of claims and evidence.
My God, the irony here is so thick I think it's giving me emphysema. ;D
I went back and re-read the original blog post that started this whole thing, and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a bunch of people on all sides getting their backs up over nothing.
I think if McAdams didn't use the TA's name, this would have been nothing. McAdam's shouldn't have identified her, but I don't think he's attacking her and he is using this scenario to attack a broader point (which may or may not be legitimate but is something worth discussion). He spends almost as much time attacking the college leadership as he does conveying the events in the classroom itself.
Maybe I'm being insensitive but I think this is a series of minor errors that added up to an unnecessary black eye. TA shouldn't have said what she said. Student shouldn't have been so reactionary/gotcha. McAdams shouldn't have used the TA's name and he used the blog to influence the leadership decision(IMHO).
I couldn't agree with this more. I looked at the original blog post this morning for the first time (I know, I broke my own rule #1 above), and frankly, I don't see anything unprofessional about what he said. Therefore, I don't see this as McAdams attacking a innocent student, I see it as exactly what Eng said in bold above. Censuring McAdams because he's being critical of the system (not necessarily of a student or colleague) is not in academia's best interests, and on that point I think we all agree.
Where we disagree is:
A) Does the context of the blog entry in any way constitute harassment, humiliation or conduct unbecoming of a Marquette employee?
and
B) Should the TA's name have been used.
With respect to A, there's nothing directly humiliating, harassing, etc., but I think the issue is with the subsequent life the issue took on once others picked it up. To put this on McAdams that he either knew or should have known that there would be this sort of fallout from the blog entry is a difficult case to make. Things go viral for no reason whatsoever these days... I've seen YouTube videos that are way more clever, funny, unique, etc. that have less than a tenth of 1% of the page views than some of the crap that's gone viral out there does. Not every one of McAdams blog entries has led to this type of fallout, and there was nothing inflaming that would have made it stand out. Even if the media is known to make mountains out of molehills, that doesn't mean you automatically place the unintended fallout* on the back of the original source.
* Maybe that's 'C,' because no, I don't think McAdams intended for any of where this has led to happen.
On B, you've got two former TAs on the record here with differing opinions as to a TA's stature in higher education. But let's not overlook one fact: the student, as a TA, is in a position of power and with power comes responsibility (damn you, Stan Lee). Seriously though, the TA is a part-time employee of the University and she is a part-time student, but she is not entitled to the benefits (i.e. protections) of a student when she is acting as an employee just as she is not entitled to the benefits of an employee when she's acting as a student. Therefore, I don't see anything wrong with McAdams naming her in his entry, just as I wouldn't see anything wrong with him naming any other professor, adjunct or administrator at Marquette or any other institution.
-
Touche. I've been advocating for the closing of all but about 50 law schools nationwide (unfortunately MU would be one of them) for a while now. Nothing positive comes out of law schools.
As an MU law alum, you would honestly leave UW as the only law school in Wisconsin?!? My God, we really do need to close MU's law school if you're the kind of lawyer we're turning out!!!
-
Some on here are commenting that this is way overblown and in many respects I agree. The initial instance should have went away, but there were several entities that escalated an incident that was not a big deal.
A TA, who is technically a student, when they are teaching a course, mishandled a confrontation with a student. I can say with absolute certainty as someone who has mentored and instructed numerous TA's that this is not an uncommon occurrence. It is part of the learning process on how to teach and handle a classroom as well as mentor undergraduates. At that point there was no fault on any side.
Fault 1 (and the primary place blame should be placed).
The undergraduate student who secretly recorded the conversation and then went to media. This was uncalled for, inappropriate and that individual is not getting any blame in all this. Does anyone know, if Wisconsin allows secret recording of individuals?
Fault 2 (and the biggest component to this mess).
The media, for taking a non-story and blowing it up to promote an agenda. This is a story that should have never hit the press.
Fault 3.
McAdams, pushing this story forward publicly referring to the TA. I cannot emphasize enough, from the perspective of someone who supervises TA's how inappropriate his actions were. This was a teaching opportunity, where he as a mentor can help a student move forward and learn from a mistake. A common mistake that one expects from a TA. That is why they first learn to teach in a structured setting, where established professors can guide/groom them for future success.
He disregarded these duties as a professor and rather pushed an agenda to humiliate the TA and in turn the University. In the end these actions may destroy the career of the TA, a person he should be mentoring and guiding, not vilifying.
This could have all been resolved if McAdams, would have mentored the student, guided her on how to handle such situations in a classroom and when confronted by the media simply commented that this is a non-story, where a TA (who he could emphasize regardless of the point is a great instructor) made a mistake and has learned from it...end of story.
I have mentored some very bad TA's over the years and for several of them groomed them into good teachers, never would I call them out in public, now there may have been colorful language used behind closed doors, but in public I always support them, whether I agree with their stance or not.
That is McAdams job first and foremost and he failed at it.
Fault 4.
MU. They should have stayed out of the public. Only comments being, we are looking into the actions of all parties involved as it relates to the student and professor code of conduct. It should have ended in my opinion with an official letter placed on McAdams file. I have seen a similar ugly display by a professor occur and that is exactly how the University handled it in that case.
I also want to emphasize that in my opinion this has nothing to do with Gay rights. Regardless of what event precipitated this outcome in should be treated in exactly the same manner every time. This is a teacher/student/university issue or mentee/mentor/university issue.
-
i knew i was having trouble with the identification of the ta cheryl abbate as a "student" but benny, you nailed it perfectly for me-thanks
-
i knew i was having trouble with the identification of the ta cheryl abbate as a "student" but benny, you nailed it perfectly for me-thanks
Maybe a good comparison might be an intern? I've had plenty and while you expect them to do a good job, as an intern they are also there to learn. If they screw something up, you take them aside and talk to them about it - then it's over. You don't publicly berate them or call them out in front of the whole company.
-
Maybe a good comparison might be an intern? I've had plenty and while you expect them to do a good job, as an intern they are also there to learn. If they screw something up, you take them aside and talk to them about it - then it's over. You don't publicly berate them or call them out in front of the whole company.
That is an apt comparison. But I also want to add, that often the TA is receiving a grade for their teaching responsibilities (not always the case, as it depends on the University). In that regard, they most definitely are a student and calling them out in public is akin to releasing their grades without their permission.
-
to answer your question forgetful- yes it is legal to record conversation without the consent of other party
http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/
-
to answer your question forgetful- yes it is legal to record conversation without the consent of other party
http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/
Thank you. I figured it was, or there would have been an entirely different lawsuit. The state where I reside it is against the law to record someone without permission, but I know that isn't necessarily that common.
-
As an MU law alum, you would honestly leave UW as the only law school in Wisconsin?!? My God, we really do need to close MU's law school if you're the kind of lawyer we're turning out!!!
The state has twice as many new jds than jobs for them, so either we both need class sizes 50% of what they are presently, or one needs to go. Deathmatch between deans anyone?
-
09/10 to last year. Started as political science and psych then moved over to advertising.
Hmm, I graduated in '09, public relations major w/ a polysci minor, and I honestly did not get anything resembling a overly conservative vibe from either polysci or the College of Comm. I'd agree with someone else who posted that MU is probably right of the typical university, but left of center.
Different viewpoints, different experiences though.
-
As someone mentioned, "conservative" and "liberal" is relative to your own position. If you are far left-leaning and you come across someone who is a moderate, it may sound to you like this person is a radical conservative.
And keep in mind that most people on the far ends of the spectrum usually aren't cognizant of their radical position, or at least don't want to admit it. They believe they are "open-minded" or "fair and balanced," when, in fact, they are not.
I think aside from business schools and econ departments, most academics are unabashedly left of center. However, in my experience only very few of them actively proselytize or openly mock the other side. Many are educated and experienced enough to respect where the other side is coming from, at least on fiscal issues (I think most all academics are pretty socially liberal).
-
Does anyone know if there is some sort of precedent for this case?
I mean there had to have been some physics, biology or anthropology class somewhere in the country where a student tried to divert the class into discussing intelligent design and was shut down by the professor. And the student goes to the media, claims the professor is suppressing free exchange of ideas, etc.
Or, from the other side, the professor actually lets the intelligent design discussion go on a bit and some other student complains that the teacher is promoting religion in class.
I know physics and philosophy are different in nature, but feel free to sub some other discipline.
-
this just in-school district doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong here...yet
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/19/school-islamic-vocabulary-lesson-part-common-core-standards/
-
Hmm, I graduated in '09, public relations major w/ a polysci minor, and I honestly did not get anything resembling a overly conservative vibe from either polysci or the College of Comm. I'd agree with someone else who posted that MU is probably right of the typical university, but left of center.
Different viewpoints, different experiences though.
I didn't so much mean the courses so much as the general campus environment. I still remember walking through the massive pro life memorial they do ever year in the central mall and being really uncomfortable. Not to mention a majority of the students I met being fairly conservative. Perhaps the Comm department wasn't vastly conservative but the work that was turned in was much more conservative than you'd see at say Beloit or Madison.
I do agree though that it's relative to your own position and me being me I'd probably read it to be more conservative than others.
-
this just in-school district doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong here...yet
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/19/school-islamic-vocabulary-lesson-part-common-core-standards/
Lighten up, McAdams - you just illustrated perfectly why we can't get along. You want to take a discussion about responsibilities of TAs and teachers and turn it into a soapbox for your muslim-hating views.
-
Lighten up, McAdams - you just illustrated perfectly why we can't get along. You want to take a discussion about responsibilities of TAs and teachers and turn it into a soapbox for your muslim-hating views.
come on brandi-i was just responding to eldon's question-not trying to divert anything. mcadams? nice touch, just don't call me francis
-
come on brandi-i was just responding to eldon's question-not trying to divert anything. mcadams? nice touch, just don't call me francis
Just givin' you a hard time, Shirley.
-
Just givin' you a hard time, Shirley.
cool
-
A graduate student teaching assistant is leaving Marquette University after being publicly targeted by a tenured professor for her response to a student who wanted to argue against gay marriage in her ethics class, according to a national blog for philosophy professionals.
Teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate will transfer next month to the philosophy PhD program at the University of Colorado, Boulder, after being accepted through an expedited admissions process, according to the Daily Nous blog for philosophy professionals maintained by Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina.
Several sources independently confirmed that Abbate received "vile" emails and threats of physical harm after Marquette associate professor John McAdams accused her in a Nov. 9 post on his conservative-leaning Marquette Warrior blog of "using a tactic typical among liberals now" with the student.
-
My God, the irony here is so thick I think it's giving me emphysema. ;D
I couldn't agree with this more. I looked at the original blog post this morning for the first time (I know, I broke my own rule #1 above), and frankly, I don't see anything unprofessional about what he said. Therefore, I don't see this as McAdams attacking a innocent student, I see it as exactly what Eng said in bold above. Censuring McAdams because he's being critical of the system (not necessarily of a student or colleague) is not in academia's best interests, and on that point I think we all agree.
Where we disagree is:
A) Does the context of the blog entry in any way constitute harassment, humiliation or conduct unbecoming of a Marquette employee?
and
B) Should the TA's name have been used.
With respect to A, there's nothing directly humiliating, harassing, etc., but I think the issue is with the subsequent life the issue took on once others picked it up. To put this on McAdams that he either knew or should have known that there would be this sort of fallout from the blog entry is a difficult case to make. Things go viral for no reason whatsoever these days... I've seen YouTube videos that are way more clever, funny, unique, etc. that have less than a tenth of 1% of the page views than some of the crap that's gone viral out there does. Not every one of McAdams blog entries has led to this type of fallout, and there was nothing inflaming that would have made it stand out. Even if the media is known to make mountains out of molehills, that doesn't mean you automatically place the unintended fallout* on the back of the original source.
* Maybe that's 'C,' because no, I don't think McAdams intended for any of where this has led to happen.
On B, you've got two former TAs on the record here with differing opinions as to a TA's stature in higher education. But let's not overlook one fact: the student, as a TA, is in a position of power and with power comes responsibility (damn you, Stan Lee). Seriously though, the TA is a part-time employee of the University and she is a part-time student, but she is not entitled to the benefits (i.e. protections) of a student when she is acting as an employee just as she is not entitled to the benefits of an employee when she's acting as a student. Therefore, I don't see anything wrong with McAdams naming her in his entry, just as I wouldn't see anything wrong with him naming any other professor, adjunct or administrator at Marquette or any other institution.
The idea that a graduate teaching assistant somehow drops student status and becomes the same as any other faculty member when she walks through the door of a classroom to teach is nice in theory, but it's simply not how universities work. If power means responsibility, then McAdams has far greater responsibility in this than Abbate, since as a tenured faculty member, he has far greater power in the university structure. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. I'm glad you had a good experience as a TA and that the faculty members treated you with respect, but speaking as someone who has directed graduate programs at two different universities, I can assure you that it is not always the case, and that the goodwill of faculty towards graduate students in terms of how they are taught/treated is at the will of the faculty member.
It's less problematic here in that McAdams is not in the same department, and so likely will never have any direct power/influence over Abbate (and now, it seems, she may be leaving the university as a direct result of McAdams' post and the response to it). But there's is no reason for him to name her in the blog except as an attack, especially since what actually happened between her and the undergraduate student in her class is not at all settled--there are several different accounts, some of which make Abbate's response to the undergraduate student seem pretty reasonable. In naming her and rushing to condemn her actions in strong (and perhaps inaccurate) terms, McAdams used Abbate as a prop for his series of sweeping generalizations argument about free speech in academia. That is far more irresponsible than anything Abbate did.
edited to fix typo
-
A graduate student teaching assistant is leaving Marquette University after being publicly targeted by a tenured professor for her response to a student who wanted to argue against gay marriage in her ethics class, according to a national blog for philosophy professionals.
Teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate will transfer next month to the philosophy PhD program at the University of Colorado, Boulder, after being accepted through an expedited admissions process, according to the Daily Nous blog for philosophy professionals maintained by Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina.
Several sources independently confirmed that Abbate received "vile" emails and threats of physical harm after Marquette associate professor John McAdams accused her in a Nov. 9 post on his conservative-leaning Marquette Warrior blog of "using a tactic typical among liberals now" with the student.
This is really just awful. Really a shame that it had to end this way.
-
Does anyone know if there is some sort of precedent for this case?
I mean there had to have been some physics, biology or anthropology class somewhere in the country where a student tried to divert the class into discussing intelligent design and was shut down by the professor. And the student goes to the media, claims the professor is suppressing free exchange of ideas, etc.
Or, from the other side, the professor actually lets the intelligent design discussion go on a bit and some other student complains that the teacher is promoting religion in class.
I know physics and philosophy are different in nature, but feel free to sub some other discipline.
I don't know why either side of that debate would complain. Sounds like a very interesting discussion to me especially in a physics or cosmology course. The point is to learn both sides of an argument or theory based on the merits of the argument.
http://vimeo.com/magiscenter/review/65991688/919d58c543
-
I don't know why either side of that debate would complain. Sounds like a very interesting discussion to me especially in a physics or cosmology course. The point is to learn both sides of an argument or theory based on the merits of the argument.
http://vimeo.com/magiscenter/review/65991688/919d58c543
It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education.
Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.
-
It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education.
Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.
Did you view the video in the link? It's a discussion proving ( The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a beginning of the universe) that all expanding universes that have an average expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning; which begs the question what was before the beginning. A good discussion in theology, philosophy and even in science courses. Oh! Non-expanding universes cannot support life.
My point is not to shut down discussion; despite how absurd someone may think the topic is.
-
but i believe Intelligent design was Gods design. it had to start somewhere
-
Did you view the video in the link? It's a discussion proving ( The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a beginning of the universe) that all expanding universes that have an average expansion rate greater than zero must have a beginning; which begs the question what was before the beginning. A good discussion in theology, philosophy and even in science courses. Oh! Non-expanding universes cannot support life.
My point is not to shut down discussion; despite how absurd someone may think the topic is.
I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.
-
This is really just awful. Really a shame that it had to end this way.
Not that it's of any justification whatsoever, but Boulder is a pretty damn good consolation.
-
Not that it's of any justification whatsoever, but Boulder is a pretty damn good consolation.
Sounds like a perfect fit for her
-
I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.
Your point is well taken, but the Higgs Boson particle exists in physical time. The big bang was the start of physical time or when time began. Some physicist call the Higgs Boson particle the God particle. Now if they can prove the Higgs Boson particle is independent or outside of time that leads to a whole bunch of other questions; but still begs the question what was before physical time.
-
Your point is well taken, but the Higgs Boson particle exists in physical time. The big bang was the start of physical time or when time began. Some physicist call the Higgs Boson particle the God particle. Now if they can prove the Higgs Boson particle is independent or outside of time that leads to a whole bunch of other questions; but still begs the question what was before physical time.
The name God particle has absolutely zero reference to God. It was from a title of a book, that was supposed to be titled the God-Damn particle, because of how infuriating the search for it was.
The publishers shortened the name of the book to the God Particle, and it has stuck.
-
It may be an appropriate discussion for a philosophy or theology class, but it is absolutely not an appropriate topic for a science class at any reputable institution of higher education.
Intelligent Design (or however you want to label it) doesn't meet the standards of the scientific theory, and therefore should be ignored in those types of classes.
I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree).
I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before. I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun). I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science. It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.
-
I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree).
I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before. I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun). I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science. It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.
Yep. That makes perfect sense to me.
-
but i believe Intelligent design was Gods design. it had to start somewhere
What you *believe* isn't necessarily good science.
-
I could be wrong but I ghought intelligent design was more along the lines of evolution never happened and Jesus walked with dinosaurs? In any case the Higgs Boson particle has been proved and created proving that accelerated light can make matter (also somewhat disproving the rule that you cannot create matter out of nothing) Now on that topic you could argue about where did the light come from that started everything and Id agree that warrants discussion in upper level science courses (think AP and college) but needn't be addressed in say the common core.
Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which ranges from radio waves to gamma rays. Electromagnetic radiation waves, as their names suggest are fluctuations of electric and magnetic fields, which can transport energy from one location to another. Light is not nothing. It exist in the physical universe . Just because something lacks mass doesn't mean its nothing.
Here is a debate on nothing and what does it actually mean; especially to those who study physics.
http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html
-
At the end of the day a student left Marquette because a faculty member made her feel unwelcome. I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum or where you place blame in this incident, the outcome is extremely sad.
-
I'll disagree with it not belonging as an appropriate topic for a science class at a reputable institution of higher education (but I think when I explain you will agree).
I have been confronted with the theory of intelligent design in my classes before. I also typically interject a good deal of the philosophy of science into my course (as I do teach a pseudo-science course also for fun). I usually challenge the students to explain according to Popper's falsifiability tests how one can define intelligent design as science. It ends up being a good avenue to discuss how science is defined and can be a nice 10-15 minute distraction from a lot of the repetitive teaching.
God bless you for doing this. I honestly believe that every student at every college should be required to take philosophy of science. Actually, I think that philosophy departments should create a hybrid logic/phil of science class that every student, regardless of major, should have to take.
All students are required to take classes in both the natural sciences and the social sciences, yet these students are never required to actually define 'science' or reflect on what the goal of science is. In my opinion, the lessons learned in philosophy of science (as well as logic), e.g., Popper/falsification, as you mentioned, are just as fundamentally important as college algebra. Colleges tout the importance of critical thinking, but fail to require their students to study the topic that would increase this ability the most.
-
What you *believe* isn't necessarily good science.
you are absolutely right sultan, but at the end of the day(i'm getting tired of that term, but feel it is appropriate here) when one has science under a proverbial microscope, and we have it down to the smallest common denominator, smaller than an electron...the Big Guy wins, imho of course and i'm a bio major, chem minor. now how can anyone think about disputing that on a SUNDAY? ;D God bless all yous guyses! and Merry Christmas!
-
From here on in there should be a fine jar on Scoop for when that phrase is used
-
Interesting take here.
http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/
-
Interesting take here.
http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/
That is a very well written piece and highlights a lot of the reasons why the review of McAdams behavior is not about free speech/gay rights.
-
you are absolutely right sultan, but at the end of the day(i'm getting tired of that term, but feel it is appropriate here) when one has science under a proverbial microscope, and we have it down to the smallest common denominator, smaller than an electron...the Big Guy wins, imho of course and i'm a bio major, chem minor. now how can anyone think about disputing that on a SUNDAY? ;D God bless all yous guyses! and Merry Christmas!
This is an excellent example of a non-sequitur, and why I agree with Eldon and forgetful that we should be teaching the philosophy of science. You've made it pretty apparent that even science majors don't get the fundamental philosophy on which the field they're studying is based.
-
This is an excellent example of a non-sequitur, and why I agree with Eldon and forgetful that we should be teaching the philosophy of science. You've made it pretty apparent that even science majors don't get the fundamental philosophy on which the field they're studying is based.
i completely understand the fundamental philosophy of sciences, i just choose to believe that when all is peeled away, something(God) greater than ourselves had to light the match. yes, i do agree with eldon and forgetful also-nice generalization though ?-(
-
i completely understand the fundamental philosophy of sciences, i just choose to believe that when all is peeled away, something(God) greater than ourselves had to light the match. yes, i do agree with eldon and forgetful also-nice generalization though ?-(
You used empirical observations of the structure of an electron as a tacit justification for your beliefs. Those two things aren't related, hence my comment of it being a non-sequitur. You can support the study of philosophy of science all you want, just don't pretend like your major is relevant.
-
Interesting take here.
http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/
Excellent points.
-
At the end of the day a student left Marquette because a faculty member made her feel unwelcome.
But that's not true. And I believe that you don't think it's true either. After all, with respect to the link Piper provided:
Interesting take here.
http://dailynous.com/2014/12/02/response-to-mcadamss-attack-on-abbate/
To which you responded:
Excellent points.
The linked page itself opened, "In recent news, a tenured professor at Marquette University, one John McAdams, has inspired a political attack against Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy graduate student at Marquette University." [emphasis mine]
McAdams didn't make the graduate student feel any more unwelcome than the graduate student made the student unwelcome in her class. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone involved here - McAdams, the grad student, the student, the media - was within their rights to do what they did, even if you think they were wrong.
I'll concede that McAdams didn't need to name the graduate student in his original entry in order to make his point. But let's be realistic here... the media didn't pick up McAdams' entry because the graduate student was named; the media picked it up because of the content of the entry. Further, because of the controversy surrounding the incident (and the media loves controversy), it's a foregone conclusion that the media would have done some investigating of who the graduate student was, and so it's probable that they would have named her at some point any way.
So if you think it's prudent to put the public embarrassment of the graduate student on McAdams because he was the inspiration for the media who blew this story up, let's be straight here that, ultimately, it was the graduate student who inspired McAdams.
New Moral of Story: "What goes around, comes around." If you're not willing to deal with the fallout of your own actions/words, keep your mouth shut. (This is equally applicable to McAdams.)
-
But that's not true. And I believe that you don't think it's true either. After all, with respect to the link Piper provided:
To which you responded:
The linked page itself opened, "In recent news, a tenured professor at Marquette University, one John McAdams, has inspired a political attack against Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy graduate student at Marquette University." [emphasis mine]
McAdams didn't make the graduate student feel any more unwelcome than the graduate student made the student unwelcome in her class. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone involved here - McAdams, the grad student, the student, the media - was within their rights to do what they did, even if you think they were wrong.
I'll concede that McAdams didn't need to name the graduate student in his original entry in order to make his point. But let's be realistic here... the media didn't pick up McAdams' entry because the graduate student was named; the media picked it up because of the content of the entry. Further, because of the controversy surrounding the incident (and the media loves controversy), it's a foregone conclusion that the media would have done some investigating of who the graduate student was, and so it's probable that they would have named her at some point any way.
So if you think it's prudent to put the public embarrassment of the graduate student on McAdams because he was the inspiration for the media who blew this story up, let's be straight here that, ultimately, it was the graduate student who inspired McAdams.
New Moral of Story: "What goes around, comes around." If you're not willing to deal with the fallout of your own actions/words, keep your mouth shut. (This is equally applicable to McAdams.)
Wrong.
Per the link Piper posted and that I commented had good points, McAdams lied about the basic facts of the incident, and then perpetuated those lies in the local and national media. McAdams was NOT within his rights to do that.
-
New Moral of Story: "What goes around, comes around." If you're not willing to deal with the fallout of your own actions/words, keep your mouth shut. (This is equally applicable to McAdams.)
I'm not sure that's how we want to treat TA's at MU. (or anyplace for that matter).
-
I'm not sure that's how we want to treat TA's at MU. (or anyplace for that matter).
"What goes around, comes around" is a Hindu/Buddhist expression which alludes to a person's actions deciding their future fate (karma). Retaliation has nothing to do with it.
Just like the golden rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "do unto others as they do unto you."
-
Wrong.
Per the link Piper posted and that I commented had good points, McAdams lied about the basic facts of the incident, and then perpetuated those lies in the local and national media. McAdams was NOT within his rights to do that.
Lied is an overt act, mis-stated is perhaps more accurate. Additionally, nothing McAdams did directly caused the TA to leave. She is leaving because ignorant savages sent her death threats and otherwise made her uncomfortable. Unless McAdams is one of those folks his only fault is poor judgement and poor reporting.
-
"What goes around, comes around" is a Hindu/Buddhist expression which alludes to a person's actions deciding their future fate (karma). Retaliation has nothing to do with it.
Just like the golden rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "do unto others as they do unto you."
I understand, but TA's are literally learning on the job. Do we really want to hold them publicly accountable for every single thing they might say?
McAdams is just an a-hole. That's not because of his political views, it's because he took a private conversation and made it public simply to further his own agenda.
If he was concerned about the Phil department, take it up with the Phil department.
-
I understand, but TA's are literally learning on the job. Do we really want to hold them publicly accountable for every single thing they might say?
So how many free passes are you proposing TAs receive? And if they don't use them before graduation, do they get to keep them or do they have to turn them in to get their PhD?
-
So how many free passes are you proposing TAs receive? And if they don't use them before graduation, do they get to keep them or do they have to turn them in to get their PhD?
People can/should be held accountable for what they do and say.
However, accountability doesn't need to be a public spectacle, especially with TAs and students in an academic setting having a private conversation.
-
Lied is an overt act, mis-stated is perhaps more accurate. Additionally, nothing McAdams did directly caused the TA to leave. She is leaving because ignorant savages sent her death threats and otherwise made her uncomfortable. Unless McAdams is one of those folks his only fault is poor judgement and poor reporting.
Untrue. There is a well established history of the treatment people get when they are outed in these blogs which leads to further lies and insults on Fox News. Death threats are a very common occurrence. McAdams lives in this world and knows this.
-
Untrue. There is a well established history of the treatment people get when they are outed in these blogs which leads to further lies and insults on Fox News. Death threats are a very common occurrence. McAdams lives in this world and knows this.
Source?
-
Untrue. There is a well established history of the treatment people get when they are outed in these blogs which leads to further lies and insults on Fox News. Death threats are a very common occurrence. McAdams lives in this world and knows this.
And so because other people are complete idiots, McAdams is responsible? Wouldn't that make Fox News more responsible? Watch out for that slope....I reported something, somebody else saw it and went and killed someone(s), I should be responsible for reporting it in the first place. A chilling effect on journalism, yes?
-
And so because other people are complete idiots, McAdams is responsible? Wouldn't that make Fox News more responsible? Watch out for that slope....I reported something, somebody else saw it and went and killed someone(s), I should be responsible for reporting it in the first place. A chilling effect on journalism, yes?
I would contend that holding up a TA's conduct in the classroom to national ridicule is not "Journalism". And lying about that conduct is also not "Journalism". And, blogging itself, is not "Journalism".
-
So how many free passes are you proposing TAs receive? And if they don't use them before graduation, do they get to keep them or do they have to turn them in to get their PhD?
A free pass would imply the TA did something wrong. If you read that link, it clearly summarizes how in fact, if you look at an accurate reporting of what occurred (and not McAdams misreports), the TA did everything correctly.
-
I would contend that [...] blogging itself, is not "Journalism".
By what standards do we determine what is and is not "journalism?"
-
I would contend that holding up a TA's conduct in the classroom to national ridicule is not "Journalism". And lying about that conduct is also not "Journalism". And, blogging itself, is not "Journalism".
I'll grant you it's a liberal use of the word journalism, but what would we call it otherwise?
And just because McAdams put it on the internet doesn't make it fodder for national ridicule. It happened to become a story that Fox News then reported on, but that hardly makes it national ridicule.
-
And, blogging itself, is not "Journalism".
I've found myself thinking about this very topic recently. I can't stand when Gawker and it's associated sites will sprinkle in opinion pieces among their other reporting. It's very dangerous to have your site set up in such a way that there's no real way to separate the fair and balanced from their editorials.
-
Lied is an overt act, mis-stated is perhaps more accurate. Additionally, nothing McAdams did directly caused the TA to leave. She is leaving because ignorant savages sent her death threats and otherwise made her uncomfortable. Unless McAdams is one of those folks his only fault is poor judgement and poor reporting.
You can polish the turd that is McAdams' unprofessional conduct all you want, but its still a turd.
I don't care if McAdams didn't personally send the heinous email messages to her. He named her on his blog, with inaccurate information, then went on national media to cry martyr knowing full well what the repercussions would be. It is a disgrace.
-
People can/should be held accountable for what they do and say.
However, accountability doesn't need to be a public spectacle, especially with TAs and students in an academic setting having a private conversation.
I agree, but the media, the general public, the internet, the blogosphere, etc. are all very fickle... it's damn near impossible to know what will and won't go viral in today's day and age - there are marketing/promotion/advertising firms who have seven-figure retainers that have yet to decipher that code. In other words, accountability isn't always going to be (and doesn't need to be) a public spectacle, but it could.
Again, if you don't want to be accountable, don't do anything for which you might be held accountable, fairly or unfairly.
-
Now this is just dumb. Yes, I believe in the First Amendment and the right to peaceably assemble & protest, but if a tree falls in the woods, does anyone care?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/demonstrators-take-both-sides-of-john-mcadams-controversy-at-marquette-b99413516z1-286591391.html
A national conservative student organization at Marquette University staged a small protest Monday against the university's decision to ban a professor from campus after he publicly criticized a teaching assistant's decision not to allow discussion of gay marriage in an ethics class.
At the same time, a handful of graduate students held signs a block away at W. Wisconsin Ave. and N. 13th St., saying they supported the actions of graduate student instructor Cheryl Abbate.
The demonstrations, which attracted little attention while the university is on Christmas break, come after Associate Professor John McAdams was placed under review while the university investigates his conduct, according to a post he wrote last week.
It seems as though a lot of "protesters" these days aren't even passionate (dare I say apathetic) about the issues as they let on... they merely desire for a "battle wound" to post on their Facebook page.
-
I agree, but the media, the general public, the internet, the blogosphere, etc. are all very fickle... it's damn near impossible to know what will and won't go viral in today's day and age - there are marketing/promotion/advertising firms who have seven-figure retainers that have yet to decipher that code. In other words, accountability isn't always going to be (and doesn't need to be) a public spectacle, but it could.
Again, if you don't want to be accountable, don't do anything for which you might be held accountable, fairly or unfairly.
But where do we draw the line?
Do we even need Miranda rights anymore? ANYTHING/EVERYTHING I ever do and say can be put on the internet and used against me? Do I have any reasonable right to privacy? Especially in an academic environment!
As far as not knowing what will turn viral, even if it didn't turn viral, I don't think it's appropriate for a teacher to call out another teacher on the internet. I didn't think it was appropriate from day 1.
If McAdams wants to be an agent of change, then engage the people he wants to change. Don't run to a keyboard and then act surprised when it doesn't go well.
-
Now this is just dumb. Yes, I believe in the First Amendment and the right to peaceably assemble & protest, but if a tree falls in the woods, does anyone care?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/demonstrators-take-both-sides-of-john-mcadams-controversy-at-marquette-b99413516z1-286591391.html
It seems as though a lot of "protesters" these days aren't even passionate (dare I say apathetic) about the issues as they let on... they merely desire for a "battle wound" to post on their Facebook page.
The first 2 comments were right on!
-
You can polish the turd that is McAdams' unprofessional conduct all you want, but its still a turd.
I don't care if McAdams didn't personally send the heinous email messages to her. He named her on his blog, with inaccurate information, then went on national media to cry martyr knowing full well what the repercussions would be. It is a disgrace.
How do we know it's inaccurate. You have McAdams/student version of events and the TA's version of events via an anonymous blog post(at least McAdams put his name on it). I'm willing to be neither version is 100% correct and until there is collaborating info from eye witnesses I'll stay on that position.
What McAdams did is unprofessional at a minimum, but ultimately you can't hold him responsible for the actions of others any more than you can blame Al Sharpton for what happened in NYC this past weekend.
-
But where do we draw the line?
Do we even need Miranda rights anymore? ANYTHING/EVERYTHING I ever do and say can be put on the internet and used against me? Do I have any reasonable right to privacy? Especially in an academic environment!
Judge Kozinski has been saying that we have voluntarily abandoned any right to privacy because our conduct is affirmatively allowing the recording and sharing of data/information about our lives to an extent that nothing is left that we could have a reasonable expectation of remaining private
-
What McAdams did is unprofessional at a minimum, but ultimately you can't hold him responsible for the actions of others any more than you can blame Al Sharpton for what happened in NYC this past weekend.
I'm not. I'm merely holding him responsible for his own actions. Which were bad enough.
-
I'm not. I'm merely holding him responsible for his own actions. Which were bad enough.
Not trying to be obtuse, but what actions are you holding him accountable for and what do you think the punishment for those actions should be?
Admittedly I'm a little out of my depth, academia is not my forte and not some place I want to spend any more time than necessary ;D
-
Not trying to be obtuse, but what actions are you holding him accountable for and what do you think the punishment for those actions should be?
He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant. He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally. If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.
-
He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant. He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally. If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.
I'm fine with that.
-
He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant. He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally. If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.
I've never really understood the forced apology punishment. It's like making Marshawn Lynch get in front of reporters and say "Thanks for asking" to every question. What's gained by forcing someone to engage in insincere farce?
-
Not trying to be obtuse, but what actions are you holding him accountable for and what do you think the punishment for those actions should be?
Admittedly I'm a little out of my depth, academia is not my forte and not some place I want to spend any more time than necessary ;D
I feel like we're going in circles.
Specifically:
- Criticising a Marquette student by name in his blog without first trying to address the issue directly with the TA or within her department leadership
- Presenting information in said blog post that was a lie/inaccurate/misstatement/nonfactual/whatever word you'd like to use regarding the incident
- Going on various media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) to decry the treatment he has received since blogging about the incident, which was suspension with pay, which he likens to being treated as a terrorist.
Further, this didn't happen in a vacuum. It is just the latest in a litany of provocations by McAdams in an attempt to portray our beloved university as his oppressor.
As for the punishment, if this were any other sector besides academia, I would say he should be fired. But I know that's not how it works at a university. At the very least, I hope he gets some sort of official censure, and is put on notice that this is his final warning.
EDIT: Actually, I'm going to go with Sultan's suggestion. He should have to publicly apologize to the student, or be fired. I like that better.
-
I've never really understood the forced apology punishment. It's like making Marshawn Lynch get in front of reporters and say "Thanks for asking" to every question. What's gained by forcing someone to engage in insincere farce?
Humility. Furthermore, if you admit you were wrong (even if you don't mean it) you can't go around playing the martyr. And the Lynch comparison isn't really a good one.
-
He should be reprimanded for acting unprofessionally regarding the graduate assistant. He should have to issue a public apology for how he acted, and apologize to her personally. If he refuses to do so, I would fire him.
This.
He needs to admit that he was wrong.
If he can't see that or chooses not to see that, then he can play the martyr on a blogger salary.
-
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.
-
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.
Yes, but at some point they have to get him to think twice before firing up his keyboard or running to the media. Maybe next time he won't be so quick to hit "publish".
I don't say any of this because I'm against McAdams particular political views, I say it because I feel like the guy has developed a selfish habit of looking for things to further his own personal agenda. I'm not in favor of that behavior, specifically, when it comes at the expense of MU and/or his co-workers.
-
Yes, but at some point they have to get him to think twice before firing up his keyboard or running to the media. Maybe next time he won't be so quick to hit "publish".
I don't say any of this because I'm against McAdams particular political views, I say it because I feel like the guy has developed a selfish habit of looking for things to further his own personal agenda. I'm not in favor of that behavior, specifically, when it comes at the expense of MU and/or his co-workers.
Same here. He has the right to hold whatever views he likes. And has the right to blog about them. The mitigating circumstance is that he is an MU employee AND the blog is called Marquette Warrior. So it is very easy to interpret that his opinions are in some way lined up with those of the university.
If, say, his blog were entitled McAdams Mess, he should be able to opine about any subject whether related to MU or not without repercussion (short of ethics violations over naming members of the MU fraternity by name.
If any concern he has is truly about how MU conducts it affairs, he would be following proper channels rather than going rogue on his blog anyway.
-
If McAdams is forced to hold his hat in his hands and mutter "I'm sorry," not a soul is going to believe him. A few people might say "there, now that you've admitted you were wrong you've learned your lesson," but I doubt they'd really believe it. The TA would still be leaving for UC-Boulder, the media would still be rabble rousing whatever their partisan angle is... and it would be a transparent farce.
No he would be publicly humbled. Far from a farce. I would also make him sign an agreement that he can't bring up this incident again.
-
No he would be publicly humbled. Far from a farce. I would also make him sign an agreement that he can't bring up this incident again.
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.
Even if you you made him sign some kind of prior restraint agreement to not talk about the incident, he'd wink-wink-nudge-nudge about attempts to "censor" commentary and those who express "unapproved opinions" would face attempts to "force someone to express politically correct opinions," all the while going on merrily as he always has. In no way would forcing him to go through the motions of apologizing humble him. It could actually stand to crystallize his perception that the university wants to homogenize thinking and speech to be in line with "politically correct."
(note: I do not think the university wants to do this, but that is exactly how he would spin it)
-
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.
Even if you you made him sign some kind of prior restraint agreement to not talk about the incident, he'd wink-wink-nudge-nudge about attempts to "censor" commentary and those who express "unapproved opinions" would face attempts to "force someone to express politically correct opinions," all the while going on merrily as he always has. In no way would forcing him to go through the motions of apologizing humble him. It could actually stand to crystallize his perception that the university wants to homogenize thinking and speech to be in line with "politically correct."
(note: I do not think the university wants to do this, but that is exactly how he would spin it)
In both cases:
A. He doesn't agree to it and is terminated with cause.
B. He goes along with it and continues his actions. That would lead to a second documented offense and his tenure can legally be revoked and him terminated.
He can be the big man, admit that he misrepresented the case and that his actions were in direct conflict with the MU code of conduct in regards to Professor/student relationships. He could further go on that in his zeal to promote increased academic freedom, he failed to understand the specifics of this case, that he failed to accurately report what transpired and had he realized the actual set of events then the TA should have been commended for how she handled the incident.
He could further go on that he full-heartedly believes that gay rights and gay marriage has a place in academic discussions, but that this case was never about those issues and he made an error in judgement and apologizes to MU, and more importantly Cheryl Abbate for the harm he caused. In the future he can promise to respect the process.
Done Deal.
-
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.
It would be an apology made under duress, a statement no more meaningful than one made by a hostage.
-
It would be an apology made under duress, a statement no more meaningful than one made by s hostage.
Fine. Then I would just fire him.
-
I don't think he would be. First, he would probably be too proud to agree to apologize, but if he were to go along with it, he'd lie, and everyone would know he was lying.
That would be appropriate, because he appears to be a lying sack of excrement.
-
That would be appropriate, because he appears to be a lying sack of excrement.
Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events? The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.
-
Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events? The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.
Does this really matter as it relates to McAdams?
He publicly named a student in a blog, leading to her harassment by others, and ultimately leading to the student leaving.
If any senior person working for me did this to an intern or junior employee, no matter what originally occurred, they would be subject to discipline. Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.
-
[...] Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.
Do universities really invest in TAs for their own benefit? I thought we just credentialed them and then turned them loose on a job market saturated by tenure-track candidates so they could ultimately be adjuncts somewhere?
-
Do universities really invest in TAs for their own benefit? I thought we just credentialed them and then turned them loose on a job market saturated by tenure-track candidates so they could ultimately be adjuncts somewhere?
It's certainly to MU's benefit to have well-qualified graduate students applying to and staying at MU.
-
It's certainly to MU's benefit to have well-qualified graduate students applying to and staying at MU.
Not to mention, they are cheaper than professors when it comes to teaching entry level classes.
-
Does this really matter as it relates to McAdams?
He publicly named a student in a blog, leading to her harassment by others, and ultimately leading to the student leaving.
If any senior person working for me did this to an intern or junior employee, no matter what originally occurred, they would be subject to discipline. Not only is it improper, it resulted in a wasted investment of time and resources in the student/TA/intern/junior employee.
Sure it does. If my employee used bad judgement that is a different thing than being an out right liar
-
Admittedly playing devils advocate, other than the link provided in the thread do we have any other sources of the TA's version of events? The only source I've seen is the link to the blog which is written by an anonymous 3rd party associated with the TA which seems pretty thin to accept at 100% face value and justify the firing of a tenured professor.
For me, it doesn't really matter if McAdams was accurate in his statements or not.
I don't want members of my staff running to their keyboard every time they hear about something they don't like.
AND, if MU let's this slide, how far do we go? What if a liberal student engages in a debate with McAdams in class. Is it okay for McAdams to then name and rip the student on his blog? Where are we going to draw the line?
If McAdams wants to complain to his wife/boyfriend/dog about his day at work, that's one thing. As soon as he starts publishing it, well, that's another issue all together.
-
Sure it does. If my employee used bad judgement that is a different thing than being an out right liar
You're right, I was incorrect.
If he flat out lied, then McAdams should be terminated immediately. You can't have tenured professors lying about stuff that's happening at MU.
If he just told his side of the story, then he should be forced to apologize.
-
If McAdams wants to complain to his wife/boyfriend/dog about his day at work, that's one thing. As soon as he starts publishing it, well, that's another issue all together.
Excellent point.
-
For me, it doesn't really matter if McAdams was accurate in his statements or not.
I don't want members of my staff running to their keyboard every time they hear about something they don't like.
Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?
I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.
[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled. Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]
In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.
Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right? How did he find out what the TA's name was?
-
Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?
I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.
[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled. Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]
In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.
Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right? How did he find out what the TA's name was?
My best guess, the student ran to him and told them their side of the story. Another good question, McAdams, respected the student privacy by not naming names, but no problem with the TA?
-
Ignoring the fact that McAdams named the student, do you not agree that his original entry was a legitimate topic for debate (whether you agree with his position or not)?
I'm not saying I agree with McAdams (I tend to agree more with the TAs position, personally), but I saw nothing inflammatory or derogatory about that original entry, and I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion because obviously, it is an issue that is much more significant than some of us may realize.
[The fact that we've been able to keep things civil for 16 pages without Rocky shutting us down is some sort of indication that the controversy at the heart of this matter (should gay marriage be debated in a classroom setting at a Jesuit university) is legitimate enough that people aren't resorting to hyperbole, histrionics and personal attacks over how a matter related to that controversy was handled. Beyond that, I think we may have just disproved Godwin's law.]
In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.
Here's a question that I'm too lazy to research... McAdams is in a different department, right? How did he find out what the TA's name was?
I believe the student went to McAdams and told him what happened.
Do I think it's okay for McAdams to blog on these topics:
#1 In general, I'm fine with McAdams challenging the status quo without repercussions from MU. I think he's wrong on some stuff, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to do it.
#2 I'm not okay with him airing private conversations unless there is a really compelling reason. Even if I agree with McAdams on this topic, his tactics are all wrong. He should have gone through the proper channels and attempted to get resolution.
If he is rebuffed and doesn't get satisfaction using the standard channels, THEN, I think he has a compelling reason to blog about his experience with MU in this matter. "I went to the head of the department, I met with this person, I did this... etc. etc. etc and I didn't receive a legitimate answer." Now THAT is the type of thing where going public might be necessary to enact change.
This entire situation didn't need to go public. It just needed to be discussed with the proper personnel at MU. McAdams just wasted a lot of his own time and energy, as well as countless other people, all because he didn't want to do the leg work of going through the process. He wanted to jump on his keyboard and start boasting about liberals and conservatives.
-
In other words, I'm under the impression that no one is upset that McAdams crossed the line in the context of his entry, the dissent is over whether he crossed the line by naming the student.
Not necessarily. He wrote this under the banner "Marquette Warrior". How would the CEO of GE react if one of his employees (who was aware of the inner workings of the company) was attacking the integrity of the company under the heading of "GE Employee"? My guess is that he would already be gone whether he named names or not.
-
Not necessarily. He wrote this under the banner "Marquette Warrior". How would the CEO of GE react if one of his employees (who was aware of the inner workings of the company) was attacking the integrity of the company under the heading of "GE Employee"? My guess is that he would already be gone whether he named names or not.
As is so often pointed out, academic institutions and corporations are two very different things. You are right, McAdams would be gone if he did this as a GE employee.....but they never would have let him have the blog in the first place or would have had him kill it after the first "incident". Corporations are not run on free speech and free exchange of ideas, universities are.
I'm pretty settled that everyone did wrong in this story and McAdams did the most wrong, but I don't know where MU goes from here. I do think firing him is close to justified, but you want to take a minor fire and blow it into a week long of public discourse....fire him. They do need to do something at this point because they've created an ado...it better be about something.
-
Same here. He has the right to hold whatever views he likes. And has the right to blog about them. The mitigating circumstance is that he is an MU employee AND the blog is called Marquette Warrior. So it is very easy to interpret that his opinions are in some way lined up with those of the university.
If, say, his blog were entitled McAdams Mess, he should be able to opine about any subject whether related to MU or not without repercussion (short of ethics violations over naming members of the MU fraternity by name.
If any concern he has is truly about how MU conducts it affairs, he would be following proper channels rather than going rogue on his blog anyway.
not trying to be contentious, but does marquette still have any say in the term "marquette warrior" now that they have divorced itself from "warrior"? and the word marquette can relate to other marquette's-the city, father m., companies are named as such, etc?
-
not trying to be contentious, but does marquette still have any say in the term "marquette warrior" now that they have divorced itself from "warrior"? and the word marquette can relate to other marquette's-the city, father m., companies are named as such, etc?
Um, yes you are trying to be contentious. Do you honestly think that there is any person out there who is old enough to read his blog that would think the term "Marquette Warrior" is not referring to the university?
-
not trying to be contentious, but does marquette still have any say in the term "marquette warrior" now that they have divorced itself from "warrior"? and the word marquette can relate to other marquette's-the city, father m., companies are named as such, etc?
First line on the home page of the blog: "We are here to provide an independent, rather skeptical view of events at Marquette University." In case anyone had any doubt.
-
Um, yes you are trying to be contentious. Do you honestly think that there is any person out there who is old enough to read his blog that would think the term "Marquette Warrior" is not referring to the university?
umm, no i'm not trying to be contentious. you miserable beach. it was an honest question. of course i know people will associate the name of the blog with the school. hey chick, you didn't even bother to read my post-why did you even bother to respond back with your condescending drivel. having a bad day, I have a toothache? i was asking from more of a legal aspect also. since marquette abandoned the nickname, did they give up it's rights?
on the other hand-thanks shiloh-since i don't read his blog, i wouldn't have known that-now that's what this board is here for
-
That's completely uncalled for, rocket.
-
That's completely uncalled for, rocket.
Plus he is just flat out wrong.
-
umm, no i'm not trying to be contentious. you miserable beach. it was an honest question. of course i know people will associate the name of the blog with the school. hey chick, you didn't even bother to read my post-why did you even bother to respond back with your condescending drivel. having a bad day, I have a toothache? i was asking from more of a legal aspect also. since marquette abandoned the nickname, did they give up it's rights?
on the other hand-thanks shiloh-since i don't read his blog, i wouldn't have known that-now that's what this board is here for
...and peace on earth to men of good will.
-
That's completely uncalled for, rocket.
wrong drew-trying to ask an HONEST question and i get a kick in the a$$-rule #1, give the benefit of the doubt, then if poster looks like a smart a$$, put them on ignore or respond like chick did. i really wanted to know what the status was of the name marq. warrior and if mu would have something on mcadams for using the term for his blog...sheeeeesh.
-
wrong drew-trying to ask an HONEST question and i get a kick in the a$$-rule #1, give the benefit of the doubt, then if poster looks like a smart a$$, put them on ignore or respond like chick did. i really wanted to know what the status was of the name marq. warrior and if mu would have something on mcadams for using the term for his blog...sheeeeesh.
Give it up dude.
-
Do you honestly think that there is any person out there who is old enough to read his blog that would think the term "Marquette Warrior" is not referring to the university?
Good luck proving that in court.
If you do figure out how to win that case, Dan Snyder would probably be willing to write you a six-figure check.
-
Good luck proving that in court.
If you do figure out how to win that case, Dan Snyder would probably be willing to write you a six-figure check.
thank you, that's all i was inquiring about-just wondering what the prevailing legal opinions are since mu abandoned the iconic nickname. same as if someone were to use hilltoppers? i'm sure there are other examples
-
not trying to be contentious, but does marquette still have any say in the term "marquette warrior" now that they have divorced itself from "warrior"? and the word marquette can relate to other marquette's-the city, father m., companies are named as such, etc?
I think Marquette would use every legal argument they could to keep the rights to Marquette Warriors. They want control over its usage. Having said that, not sure of the extent of that control.
I think this extends to companies also. I think US Bank bought the names of all preceeding banks like First Wisconsin, Star, Firstar, etc.
-
Marquette let the trademark of "Marquette Warriors" lapse years ago. You want to use it in commerce? Go for it.
-
Marquette let the trademark of "Marquette Warriors" lapse years ago. You want to use it in commerce? Go for it.
I thought I remember cease and desist letters being sent out over Warrior usage. No?
-
umm, no i'm not trying to be contentious. you miserable beach. it was an honest question. of course i know people will associate the name of the blog with the school. hey chick, you didn't even bother to read my post-why did you even bother to respond back with your condescending drivel. having a bad day, I have a toothache? i was asking from more of a legal aspect also. since marquette abandoned the nickname, did they give up it's rights?
Just caught up with this thread. I too read your question as completely legitimate and worthy of some interesting discussion. Perhaps chick's response might have been a bit knee jerk but it was ungentlemanly to respond as you did. Please offer your apology and let's move on. Thanks and Merry Christmas.
-
I thought I remember cease and desist letters being sent out over Warrior usage. No?
A search of the USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System shows "Warriors Marquette" and "Marquette Warriors" as dead trademarks. Trademarks need to be maintained or they die and anyone can use them; looks like Warriors died.
-
Also a search of the same database for just "Marquette" does not appear to show any other Warriors-related trademarks in existence, live or dead.
-
Just caught up with this thread. I too read your question as completely legitimate and worthy of some interesting discussion. Perhaps chick's response might have been a bit knee jerk but it was ungentlemanly to respond as you did. Please offer your apology and let's move on. Thanks and Merry Christmas.
I read the first half of that and thought "uh oh... rough Christmas at chez glowchick this year."
Then I read the last half and learned a valuable lesson: how to politely tell my wife to "put a stocking in it" without having to sleep on the couch. Best Christmas present ever.