MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Galway Eagle on February 04, 2015, 09:31:28 PM
-
http://m.jsonline.com/news/education/290863921.html
-
Free McAdams!
-
I'm sure there won't be any litigation from his side at all if he's terminated.
-
Pleasantly surprised with this outcome.
-
F uck Marquette. This is shameful and embarassing
-
No way this is over. McAdams, with a lawyer and nothing to lose, creates a crapload of negative attention for MU over the next 18-24 months. The guy has to be relatively set from a financial perspective, so settlement money won't be appealing to him. Buckle down, MU brass...
-
Oh-oh, this ain't gonna end well for anyone. The final agree's to disagree's will more than likely have some gags in it. Regardless of how this plays out, this doesn't look good from the outside looking in
-
Marquette does more to shoot itself in the face than any other college I know.
-
Before you all get lathered up:
ear Marquette community,
In light of media coverage triggered by information Associate Professor John McAdams shared publicly, it is important that I share additional perspective with you. While we will not discuss details of personnel matters, I can inform you that the university’s review process is now complete. Professor McAdams has been advised of the action that the university intends to take as a result. Until all procedures required under university rules and policies are complete, we will not publicly disclose further details. I do, however, want to reinforce important principles that I have discussed previously that will be at the forefront of our efforts going forward.
The decisions here have everything to do with our Guiding Values and expectations of conduct toward each other and nothing to do with academic freedom, freedom of speech, or same-sex marriage. As I noted in my recent Presidential Address, our Guiding Values were drafted with extensive input from our campus community to keep us all accountable and to provide the foundation for a collegial environment based on mutual respect.
As your president, I assure you of my full support for academic freedom. My academic experiences are rooted in my time as a tenured faculty member, where I saw first-hand the great privileges and responsibilities bestowed upon me and my academic colleagues.
Debate and intense discussion are at the heart of who we are as a university, but they must be balanced with respect – our Catholic faith and Jesuit tradition demand nothing less. There are dozens of ways disagreements can be handled with respect and civility on campus, many of which are outlined in our handbooks. And, there are dozens of ways a professor can productively help a student learn and grow.
We must always remember that academic freedom must be grounded in integrity, be accurate at all times and show respect for others’ opinions. When these standards are not met, the power of tenure can abuse and silence our students – the very minds we are seeking to cultivate, grow and ultimately transform.
In closing, you have my promise that the safety and well-being of our students will come first in every decision I make as president of this great university.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Lovell
President
-
I'm sure there won't be any litigation from his side at all if he's terminated.
He'd be wasting his money, he has no legal merit in this instance.
-
I wonder how Marquette likes its eggs?
-
He'd be wasting his money, he has no legal merit in this instance.
You're may be right, but it will be framed as a free speech issue by his side. And there are plenty of groups (Fire is the 1st that comes to mind, maybe even ACLU) that will take it as a free speech case.
-
You're may be right, but it will be framed as a free speech issue by his side. And there are plenty of groups (Fire is the 1st that comes to mind, maybe even ACLU) that will take it as a free speech case.
Free speech would be grasping at best.
-
You're may be right, but it will be framed as a free speech issue by his side. And there are plenty of groups (Fire is the 1st that comes to mind, maybe even ACLU) that will take it as a free speech case.
Are you talking about the freedom of speech that guarantees that the government can't abridge your right to speak? And how does that apply to Marquette, being, you know, not the government?
-
Are you talking about the freedom of speech that guarantees that the government can't abridge your right to speak? And how does that apply to Marquette, being, you know, not the government?
Yep.
-
Marquette does more to shoot itself in the face than any other college I know.
Uh huh. I disagree with McAdams' ideology, but termination of a tenured professor due to ideological differences is really wrong. It's not like Johnny was cranking out hate mail to the TA up in his office in the Wehr building.
The right answer was for MU to suck it up and wait out this guy's tenure. How old is he, 70? How much longer would he have been on campus anyway? If you don't agree with his approach, don't tenure him in the unnatural carnal knowledgeing first place.
My guess is that this is a decision made with significant input from enrollment and development. MU calculates that McAdams' presence impacts applications and donations and cuts bait. Which would be cool if he were an assistant professor or, ahem, a TA, but he's in neither of those roles. His tenure protects his right to both differ ideologically on gay marriage, as well as his ability to promote discourse on an issue that has nowhere near unanimous support in this country, outside the MU garden.
-
Oh-oh, this ain't gonna end well for anyone. The final agree's to disagree's will more than likely have some gags in it. Regardless of how this plays out, this doesn't look good from the outside looking in
They wanted their chance to do this, and this incident was it. He's already prepared to sue the University. This is gonna drag out, and Marquette might end up regretting this decision.
-
Uh huh. I disagree with McAdams' ideology, but termination of a tenured professor due to ideological differences is really wrong. It's not like Johnny was cranking out hate mail to the TA up in his office in the Wehr building.
The right answer was for MU to suck it up and wait out this guy's tenure. How old is he, 70? How much longer would he have been on campus anyway? If you don't agree with his approach, don't tenure him in the unnatural carnal knowledgeing first place.
Did you not read Lovell's statement I posted? Nothing to do with ideology. It's about respect and accountability in the workplace, something McAdams has lacked for apparently decades.
-
Uh huh. I disagree with McAdams' ideology, but termination of a tenured professor due to ideological differences is really wrong. It's not like Johnny was cranking out hate mail to the TA up in his office in the Wehr building.
The right answer was for MU to suck it up and wait out this guy's tenure. How old is he, 70? How much longer would he have been on campus anyway? If you don't agree with his approach, don't tenure him in the unnatural carnal knowledgeing first place.
My guess is that this is a decision made with significant input from enrollment and development. MU calculates that McAdams' presence impacts applications and donations and cuts bait. Which would be cool if he were an assistant professor or, ahem, a TA, but he's in neither of those roles. His tenure protects his right to both differ ideologically on gay marriage, as well as his ability to promote discourse on an issue that has nowhere near unanimous support in this country, outside the MU garden.
Two things, with tenure, he can stay on campus as long as he wants to. Second, tenure is held extremely sacred by faculty, yet, overwhelmingly across the country faculty think he was in the wrong and are supportive of revoking his tenure.
Tenure is sacred, but supporting the development of students is paramount to academia. He violated the latter.
-
Tenure is sacred, but supporting the development of students is paramount to academia. He violated the latter.
+1.
Good to see others can see beyond the Fox News headlines on this.
Keeping McAdams after this would be the bigger detriment to MU's future. Lovell stepped up to the plate big time.
-
Did you not read Lovell's statement I posted? Nothing to do with ideology. It's about respect and accountability in the workplace, something McAdams has lacked for apparently decades.
"I'll go with Taking PR Statements at Face Value for $2,000, Alex!"
-
Isn't Marquette the same University that withdrew a legitimate job offer to a compelling candidate for the Deanship because they learned she was a lesbian????
-
This decision is absolutely indefensible for Marquette with respect to academic integrity. Whatever one believes about the merits of gay marriage, it is unquestionably a legitimate topic for a philosophy of ethics class and a professor should have every right to comment on another instructor's handling of the issue.
-
"I'll go with Taking PR Statements at Face Value for $2,000, Alex!"
So you completely agree with a tenured professor attacking, berating and then completely outing a teaching assistant? Okay, buddy.
That's not the conduct Marquette should support from a tenured professor.
-
So you completely agree with a tenured professor attacking, berating and then completely outing a teaching assistant? Okay, buddy.
That's not the conduct Marquette should support from a tenured professor.
Did you read his Nov 9 post? If a TA can't handle that level of criticism they shouldn't be involved in academia...
-
That's not the conduct Marquette should support from a tenured professor.
Employing him isn't necessarily a show of support. They have suspended and reprimanded him publicly. Revoking tenure for this is a step too far, IMO.
-
Are you talking about the freedom of speech that guarantees that the government can't abridge your right to speak? And how does that apply to Marquette, being, you know, not the government?
I don't think it is a free speech issue, but his side will use it in a lawsuit.
The 2014 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found 59% of higher education institutions have policies that they believe infringes on 1st Amendment rights. FIRE also issued a "yellow light" rating to another 35.6 percent of schools because they have "policies that over regulate speech on campus."
Some of the examples FIRE cites as free speech violations are attempts to prevent harassment & bullying among students.
-
Did you read his Nov 9 post? If a TA can't handle that level of criticism they shouldn't be involved in academia...
Criticism or bullying? Just another McAdams stunt.
-
The right decision. Takes some balls to stand up to a bully, and Lovell showed he has big brass ones. Mad respect.
-
Employing him isn't necessarily a show of support. They have suspended and reprimanded him publicly. Revoking tenure for this is a step too far, IMO.
He clearly doesn't deserve tenure from the University with his actions.
This wouldn't be supported at any one of the professions we all work for, Marquette shouldn't support it either.
-
Criticism or bullying? Just another McAdams stunt.
Reverse the situation: TA allows a discussion of the ethics of gay marriage and a professor takes to a blog to criticize the TA for offending gay students. Would that be bullying?
-
This wouldn't be supported at any one of the professions we all work for, Marquette shouldn't support it either.
You know as well as I do that academia is a different world than any of "any one of the professions we all work for."
-
Reverse the situation: TA allows a discussion of the ethics of gay marriage and a professor takes to a blog to criticize the TA for offending gay students. Would that be bullying?
This has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. NOTHING!
So yes, if it was put in the exact same terms, with the exact same outing, it's still bullying.
You know as well as I do that academia is a different world than any of "any one of the professions we all work for."
There's the inherent problem, and glad that Lovell is continuing against that different world at MU like he did at UWM.
-
This has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. NOTHING!
So yes, if it was put in the exact same terms, with the exact same outing, it's still bullying.
There's the inherent problem, and glad that Lowell is continuing against that different world at MU like he did at UWM.
I highly doubt you would accept a firing of a liberal professor in my hypothetical, but so be it.
-
I highly doubt you would accept a firing of a liberal professor in my hypothetical, but so be it.
I'm far from liberal, and there's post history to back that up.
-
+1.
Good to see others can see beyond the Fox News headlines on this.
Keeping McAdams after this would be the bigger detriment to MU's future. Lovell stepped up to the plate big time.
You didn't do yourself any favors by adding the "Fox News headlines" part. We get where you're coming from sans the Unremarkable quip
-
You didn't do yourself any favors by adding the "Fox News headlines" part. We get where you're coming from sans the Unremarkable quip
Yeah, probably unnecessary. It was driven by the fact that this is even an issue because McAdams knew the stunt he was trying to pull. He was looking for the headline and that's the most irritating part of this.
-
Haven't stayed on top of this issue but have been receiving emails from alumni who are not too pleased with this situation. Couldn't believe how worked up some are.
-
Yeah, probably unnecessary. It was driven by the fact that this is even an issue because McAdams knew the stunt he was trying to pull. He was looking for the headline and that's the most irritating part of this.
Ya know what? I just rethunk (sic) my comment on your post- you are right(my apologies)there probably will be a Fox News headlines and Rush Limbaugh, mark belling, Sean hannity, Megyn Kelly, et.al. Headlines... I am not trying to bring politics into this but I am sorry to say, the reality is those are the headline stories that are going to have marquette's pr people working overtime
-
It was driven by the fact that this is even an issue because McAdams knew the stunt he was trying to pull. He was looking for the headline and that's the most irritating part of this.
And now he finally becomes the martyr. In the end, he wins.
-
Where'd the poll come from? I didn't add that to my original post... I think...
-
This has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. NOTHING!
I disagree. This case is dripping with political undertones. Anyone who tends to follow Roman Catholicism more dogmatically will have a stronger tendency to be appalled by the behavior of the TA first, and will forgive McAdams's transgressions on "journalistic necessity" grounds. Those who tend to agree with the TA's stance on gay marriage and feel that the anonymous student is a homophobic weasel will be more likely to interpret this situation against McAdams; they will consider him a bully with an axe to grind against the lesbian Department Chair and the "Vegan-feminist" Cheryl Abbate.
These preconceptions will influence the interpretation of the case.
Personally, I think Lovell's PR statement is dripping with bull, but I tend to believe what Holz wrote to McAdams. This is a case of death by one thousand cuts. Over time, McAdams has proven unable to restrain himself on his blog, and this situation is simply the tipping point. I think the ultra-liberal philosophy department lobbied Lovell to take this case to the bank and cash it, and he agreed with the department over McAdams's claim of tenure.
What better time to clean house than with a new President? Marquette administration has known for a long time that this guy is a headache, and quite frankly, hired or fired, the guy is going to generate negative PR against the University. I wouldn't be surprised if administration is thinking of this as a bit of a hedge: the odds that McAdams will embroil himself in something even more inflammatory than this case in the future is probably pretty high! So why not fire him now, take the lumps, and avoid the next inevitable abortion-gay-Muslim flare up that might spin out of control?
That being said, I disagree with the decision. I think termination is one step too far. I get the feeling that McAdams is scared despite his outward blogging confidence. His recent statements have included more grammatical errors than usual, and his writing a bit more erratic. In other words, I think that the threat of termination would have been sufficient to control his behavior. But administration is going for the throat, and they're not going to balk at this point.
I feel that termination is one step too far because the whole issue presents such lively debate. Sure, close-minded trolls will claim there is no room for debate, but let's face it, this is an interesting set of facts. Let's start with the TA: are faculty allowed to criticize her on the same terms as a normal faculty member? Probably not, because she is a student, but on the flip-side, I feel the the students should then have more access to the Department Chair, to openly present controversial decisions made by the TA. This would balance the equation. It sounds as if the little weaselly spy bastard (the one person in this whole thing I despise) didn't get a fair shake from Nancy Snow when he visited with her. -- the conversation probably never had a chance, considering Snow's own preconceived notions about gay marriage, but I consider her a bad actor here because she should have granted more weight to a student bringing her concerns about a TA.
Next, McAdams. He made plenty of big-time mistakes in this matter, but I'll bet he never saw this one coming. He is operating under the impression that he is at liberty to pursue and publish these controversies under journalistic pretenses, but I think he is mistaken. His constant references to "Journalism 101" have no bearing on his relationship to Marquette's principles. The biggest mistake he made is forgetting who pays his salary -- it's the students, the customers. Lovell knows that the first order of business is to make Marquette an attractive place for students.
In the end, academic tenure has to mean something, and no amount of Lovell spin can change that. He made a business decision, and he appeased a long-standing wish of the philosophy department (ranked 97th in the nation...) to rid themselves of McAdams. He did it because the opportunity presented itself, and he did it to hedge against bigger future headaches. You might say this is as big as it can get, but I doubt it. Middle of winter, basketball team ain't hot right now, this won't go viral.
The reason Lovell's decision is wrong is simple in my mind: tenure should protect faculty against statements and decisions that can be reasonably debated. McAdams's decision to go public about an issue of controversy is reasonable to many, including me, and his equating a TA to a faculty position (and thus crapping on her no differently than he has other faculty in his blogs), actually presents an interesting debate regarding the prevalence of TA leadership in the classroom, and how much actual faculty supervision is necessary to assure classroom integrity. McAdams may be a pompous ass, and he might very well be Professor McCrabby, but that shouldn't be enough. Academia does not equal the rest of the business world.
-
Vanity, you summed up how I feel about this better than I can. Thanks for posting.
-
Good. I dont want MU to be associated with professors like him. Good riddance.
-
Wait, does Left Shark have... pit stains?
-
Good. I dont want MU to be associated with professors like him. Good riddance.
In other words, the ends justify the means. That shouldn't be good enough.
-
In other words, the ends justify the means. That shouldn't be good enough.
I would argue that it does. I agree wholeheartedly with your earlier post till the student was essentially forced to transfer out due to the hate mail she was receiving from McAdams lapse in judgement. Had that not happened I would agree that this is too far and believe that a slap on the wrist would do just fine.
-
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/02/marquette-to-warrior-blogger-were-going.html?m=1
-
And they say you can't get rid of professors with tenure.
-
I understand this case is more complicated than this, but Johnny is going to or already has become ground zero for conservatives cry against the liberal stranglehold on education in general and universities more specifically. As one national talk show host put it last week, conservatives are getting very sick and tired of being the minority voice on campuses all over the nation while getting the beat down all over. I don't believe this will have a happy ending. This may have more repercussions than the warrior name boondoggle. We may even see the warrior thingy play into this as just another example of where this university is going and again, many do not like the direction and/or the national pub.
-
I'm not convinced any professor should have blanket immunity from dismissal for all but the most grievous of offenses. In other words: I'm skeptical of tenure as an employment system.
(yes I'm aware that unless ALL universities ended the practice NO universities will from an arms race perspective)
-
Everyone has his price. At this point they should just pay McAdams to go away. It's about the only way that MU doesn't end up *looking* bad to everyone who will consume a biased reporting of this story.
-
Everyone has his price. At this point they should just pay McAdams to go away. It's about the only way that MU doesn't end up *looking* bad to everyone who will consume a biased reporting of this story.
Please elucidate the non-biased reporting of this story for me.
-
Everyone has his price. At this point they should just pay McAdams to go away. It's about the only way that MU doesn't end up *looking* bad to everyone who will consume a biased reporting of this story.
I understand your point, however, don't miss the forest through the trees. Yes, mccadams will get his just compensation. bUT, this is bigger than $$. There will be the conservatives using this as another example of getting the beat down. And yes, we are going to hear many watered down versions of how this whole thing played out, but the reality of the situation will be conservative tenured professor fired for standing up for "freedom of speech". By the time the rest of the story gets played out, people will only have heard.......
Marquette could have taken the high ground, issued a reprimand of some sort making their stand official, then moving on semi-quietly. Say their part based on their mission statement and their adherence to it, voice their displeasures. Advise the "bullies" who went way to far(extremists) to knock it off. Maybe have mccadams issue a statement that he does not advocate for that kind of reaction as it is just wrong and not how we solve problems
-
Isn't Marquette the same University that withdrew a legitimate job offer to a compelling candidate for the Deanship because they learned she was a lesbian????
yes, but fortunately or not for marquette, it was pointed out that she really had no qualifications for the position, so i think they decided to go with unqualified candidates for $50 alex rather than academia and the lgbt community for $1000 thus sparing them of the big D label...phew!! flying a little close to the sun-I have a toothache so?
-
"....Marquette could have taken the high ground, issued a reprimand of some sort making their stand official, then moving on semi-quietly. Say their part based on their mission statement and their adherence to it, voice their displeasures. Advise the "bullies" who went way to far(extremists) to knock it off. Maybe have mccadams issue a statement that he does not advocate for that kind of reaction as it is just wrong and not how we solve problems."
I absolutely agree with RS (and Keefe earlier). MU demonstrates a remarkable affinity for effing up PR problems. On a much less important level the recent shabby treatment of Terri Mitchell also come to mind.
-
When I first saw his blog post posted on fb a while ago, I noticed the headline and several comments and thought to myself, "wow, I can't believe MU is shutting up this professor due to his thoughts on gay marriage and the discussion around it". I really don't care where anyone stands on that issue, but I always think that encouraging a discussion around it is generally productive.
So when I first started reading this, I was floored that MU was coming down on this guy. I read his blog post about it and was shocked that it seemed they were outing him, and that the TA mishandled this.
And then I read an actual news article that gave more information. Not only did he blast the TA, but he named her specifically. That is what completely changed my perspective on this whole ordeal. As a faculty member and an adult placed in a role model position, you simply cannot tear apart a student for the whole public to read, especially considering most of his readers are likely current/past MU students/staff. He absolutely deserves this in every way.
Now, I still do think the TA mishandled the situation in the classroom and McAdams had a great opportunity here to provide her a valuable lesson. But instead of handling this in private, he acted like a 12 year old girl who just got dumped and needed to tell the whole world about it.
-
Did you read his Nov 9 post? If a TA can't handle that level of criticism they shouldn't be involved in academia...
That's not for him to decide.
-
Have any of you actually read his blog posts? It's been a long time coming. He constantly rips fellow faculty, tells people to not take their class, etc. the guy is nuts
-
I disagree. This case is dripping with political undertones. Anyone who tends to follow Roman Catholicism more dogmatically will have a stronger tendency to be appalled by the behavior of the TA first, and will forgive McAdams's transgressions on "journalistic necessity" grounds. Those who tend to agree with the TA's stance on gay marriage and feel that the anonymous student is a homophobic weasel will be more likely to interpret this situation against McAdams; they will consider him a bully with an axe to grind against the lesbian Department Chair and the "Vegan-feminist" Cheryl Abbate.
These preconceptions will influence the interpretation of the case.
Personally, I think Lovell's PR statement is dripping with bull, but I tend to believe what Holz wrote to McAdams. This is a case of death by one thousand cuts. Over time, McAdams has proven unable to restrain himself on his blog, and this situation is simply the tipping point. I think the ultra-liberal philosophy department lobbied Lovell to take this case to the bank and cash it, and he agreed with the department over McAdams's claim of tenure.
What better time to clean house than with a new President? Marquette administration has known for a long time that this guy is a headache, and quite frankly, hired or fired, the guy is going to generate negative PR against the University. I wouldn't be surprised if administration is thinking of this as a bit of a hedge: the odds that McAdams will embroil himself in something even more inflammatory than this case in the future is probably pretty high! So why not fire him now, take the lumps, and avoid the next inevitable abortion-gay-Muslim flare up that might spin out of control?
That being said, I disagree with the decision. I think termination is one step too far. I get the feeling that McAdams is scared despite his outward blogging confidence. His recent statements have included more grammatical errors than usual, and his writing a bit more erratic. In other words, I think that the threat of termination would have been sufficient to control his behavior. But administration is going for the throat, and they're not going to balk at this point.
I feel that termination is one step too far because the whole issue presents such lively debate. Sure, close-minded trolls will claim there is no room for debate, but let's face it, this is an interesting set of facts. Let's start with the TA: are faculty allowed to criticize her on the same terms as a normal faculty member? Probably not, because she is a student, but on the flip-side, I feel the the students should then have more access to the Department Chair, to openly present controversial decisions made by the TA. This would balance the equation. It sounds as if the little weaselly spy bastard (the one person in this whole thing I despise) didn't get a fair shake from Nancy Snow when he visited with her. -- the conversation probably never had a chance, considering Snow's own preconceived notions about gay marriage, but I consider her a bad actor here because she should have granted more weight to a student bringing her concerns about a TA.
Next, McAdams. He made plenty of big-time mistakes in this matter, but I'll bet he never saw this one coming. He is operating under the impression that he is at liberty to pursue and publish these controversies under journalistic pretenses, but I think he is mistaken. His constant references to "Journalism 101" have no bearing on his relationship to Marquette's principles. The biggest mistake he made is forgetting who pays his salary -- it's the students, the customers. Lovell knows that the first order of business is to make Marquette an attractive place for students.
In the end, academic tenure has to mean something, and no amount of Lovell spin can change that. He made a business decision, and he appeased a long-standing wish of the philosophy department (ranked 97th in the nation...) to rid themselves of McAdams. He did it because the opportunity presented itself, and he did it to hedge against bigger future headaches. You might say this is as big as it can get, but I doubt it. Middle of winter, basketball team ain't hot right now, this won't go viral.
The reason Lovell's decision is wrong is simple in my mind: tenure should protect faculty against statements and decisions that can be reasonably debated. McAdams's decision to go public about an issue of controversy is reasonable to many, including me, and his equating a TA to a faculty position (and thus crapping on her no differently than he has other faculty in his blogs), actually presents an interesting debate regarding the prevalence of TA leadership in the classroom, and how much actual faculty supervision is necessary to assure classroom integrity. McAdams may be a pompous ass, and he might very well be Professor McCrabby, but that shouldn't be enough. Academia does not equal the rest of the business world.
I pretty much agree with this. His actions were wrong, and a reprimand was clearly in order, but I don't think you terminate your relationship with a 70 year old professor over this. I wonder if his blog postings when the investigation started and he started publicly talking about the process were the last straw.
That being said, I agree with you that the fall out from this will be minimal. Belling and Sykes will get all lathered up, but in the end it won't matter all that much.
-
Not only did he blast the TA, but he named her specifically. That is what completely changed my perspective on this whole ordeal. As a faculty member and an adult placed in a role model position, you simply cannot tear apart a student for the whole public to read, especially considering most of his readers are likely current/past MU students/staff. He absolutely deserves this in every way.
This. This is the point many people aren't getting.
My father called me from Nashville, all upset after hearing Mark Belling discuss the issue at length when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh (taking McAdam's position, natch). What I said to my dad was. "If Dr. McAdams posted, 'I just read a research paper on end-of-life care written by [his granddaughter, a MU nursing student] and it was a steaming pile of worthless crap. I certainly hope no state is stupid enough to give her a nursing license.', would you think the professor's behavior was appropriate? Because that, at its core, is what he did to the philosophy TA."
This isn't about free speech. It doesn't matter what the subject matter was. It's that a professor publicly and unapologetically castigated a student. And I say that as a person who, on the continuum of conservative to liberal, would probably be spooning Chicos.
-
Ya know what? I just rethunk (sic) my comment on your post- you are right(my apologies)there probably will be a Fox News headlines and Rush Limbaugh, mark belling, Sean hannity, Megyn Kelly, et.al. Headlines... I am not trying to bring politics into this but I am sorry to say, the reality is those are the headline stories that are going to have marquette's pr people working overtime
I do think you are right that this is something the conservative media outlets might latch on to and try to make a story out of. However, I think MU made a calculated decision here. Prospective students are not listening to talk radio, watching Fox News, etc - though definitely some alums that donate are.
MU made this decision because it would be least likely to impact future admissions numbers. Young people are particularly pro gay marriage, and MU doesn't want to have an image that they support someone who is not pro gay marriage. MU has calculated that the donations hit they will take from conservative alums is smaller than the cost of any potential hit to admissions numbers.
I don't know if this makes the decision to fire McAdams right or wrong. I'm all for academic freedom, I think it is important. However, a professor criticizing a TA on a blog is a no-no IMO. Additionally, it is the 21st century, and gay marriage is legal in 37 states. The tide has turned, and I do not believe that someone can have an opinion in a professional setting that is not accepting of LGBT rights.
-
I am a supporter of gay rights.
I grew up Catholic and believed Catholic teaching on gay rights. I have family members who "came out". I love them and listened to them. I studied the issues. Eventually, I came to believe that traditional Catholic teaching on gay rights needs updating.
Open discussion is what opened my eyes. If I had TA Abbatte as a teacher, I may have held on to my old beliefs. I refuse to be backed into a corner. I want open discussion.
This was an opportunity to teach and MU did what MU does. Has MU ever had a significant PR opportunity that they did not totally F up? Where were the rest of you McAdams bashers when Marquette withdrew the offer to hire the gay Dean? Talk about having it both ways.
I don't agree with McAdams response, but firing is ridiculous.
-
Has MU ever had a significant PR opportunity that they did not totally F up?
Believe me...this will not be a PR problem for Marquette.
-
I pretty much agree with this. His actions were wrong, and a reprimand was clearly in order, but I don't think you terminate your relationship with a 70 year old professor over this. I wonder if his blog postings when the investigation started and he started publicly talking about the process were the last straw.
That being said, I agree with you that the fall out from this will be minimal. Belling and Sykes will get all lathered up, but in the end it won't matter all that much.
None of us have seen the rest of his personnel file. For all we know, he may have been officially warned previously.
-
None of us have seen the rest of his personnel file. For all we know, he may have been officially warned previously.
Very true. That is why I am not going to get all bent out of shape about this even though I disagree with given what is out there.
-
Believe me...this will not be a PR problem for Marquette.
Sultan,
I agree that the bias in media will tamp down a lot of negative PR for MU, and I'm sure that the PR team is counting on that.
-
I do think you are right that this is something the conservative media outlets might latch on to and try to make a story out of. However, I think MU made a calculated decision here. Prospective students are not listening to talk radio, watching Fox News, etc - though definitely some alums that donate are.
MU made this decision because it would be least likely to impact future admissions numbers. Young people are particularly pro gay marriage, and MU doesn't want to have an image that they support someone who is not pro gay marriage. MU has calculated that the donations hit they will take from conservative alums is smaller than the cost of any potential hit to admissions numbers.
I don't know if this makes the decision to fire McAdams right or wrong. I'm all for academic freedom, I think it is important. However, a professor criticizing a TA on a blog is a no-no IMO. Additionally, it is the 21st century, and gay marriage is legal in 37 states. The tide has turned, and I do not believe that someone can have an opinion in a professional setting that is not accepting of LGBT rights.
i'm not going to disagree with your opinion here, but with all do respect, this isn't about a tolerance for or against gay marriage. rather, it's about the ability to discuss, debate, and/or hold ones personal opinion on gay marriage, the ability to debate the issue in a healthy way, and then, very importantly, not being shut down or labeled a bigot. i believe most people are over gay marriage and could care less if it occurs(as it has) or not. i think most of the debate over whether or not it is acceptable or not is related to how it is recognized from a benefits in a public work venue(government workers), benefits programs and if ones taxes go toward compensation issues such as insurances, pension funds, etc. for example. regardless, there will still be a "freedom of speech" issue that will try to be resolved. yes, i realize mu also has a handbook to abide by and there appear to be some violations. this is a complex issue and that's the elephant in the room; it will keep this in the spotlight longer and the outcome(s) could have larger ramifications away from marquette. could this set a precedent for tenure issues going forward? if so, this legal scab could be picked at for longer than just the next few weeks and i'm sure that's not what the mu administration wants
-
Believe me...this will not be a PR problem for Marquette.
?-(i think it already is
-
Sultan,
I agree that the bias in media will tamp down a lot of negative PR for MU, and I'm sure that the PR team is counting on that.
Oh please. Local media wouldn't give a damn about this if it were a conservative like McAdams or a professor as liberal as Nancy Snow. I mean, how much of a "PR disaster" was it when Marquette withdrew the offer to the Liberal Arts dean? After about a month, people moved on. It had no real impact on donations, admissions or among the faculty. This will be about the same.
As someone who works in PR for a university, this really is nothing. Belling and his ilk are easy to ignore, since they inflame quickly, but just as quickly move on. The only way it becomes an issue is if it gets to the national media and becomes a "cause" somehow - or it causes major donors to withdraw their support. (And it won't. Most donors are acutely aware of how colleagues should treat one another in the workplace.) News cycles are short. Even a lawsuit isn't that big of a deal - everyone gets sued these days.
-
?-(i think it already is
LOL...where?
-
Sultan,
I agree that the bias in media will tamp down a lot of negative PR for MU, and I'm sure that the PR team is counting on that.
Eh.
It's not so much about political bias as it is the modern news cycle.
This will get rinsed through the various outlets for a couple of days. There will be "outrage", and then everybody will likely move on.
-
Eh.
It's not so much about political bias as it is the modern news cycle.
This will get rinsed through the various outlets for a couple of days. There will be "outrage", and then everybody will likely move on.
Exactly. I have been involved in "PR disasters" a hell of a lot worse than this, and despite all the chicken littles worrying about it bleeding students or donations from the school, it simply didn't. A few months later, everyone pretty much forgot about it, and year later we hit record enrollment.
-
Exactly. I have been involved in "PR disasters" a hell of a lot worse than this, and despite all the chicken littles worrying about it bleeding students or donations from the school, it simply didn't. A few months later, everyone pretty much forgot about it, and year later we hit record enrollment.
For better or worse, MU is a private institution, so money talks in a lot of cases.
If MU enrollment suddenly drops, or donations dry up because of McAdams being fired... MU will invite him back and give him a huge raise!
BUT... I wouldn't bet on that happening.
-
For better or worse, MU is a private institution, so money talks in a lot of cases.
If MU enrollment suddenly drops, or donations dry up because of McAdams being fired... MU will invite him back and give him a huge raise!
BUT... I wouldn't bet on that happening.
Agreed on all counts...especially the last one.
-
That's not for him to decide.
This. This times a million.
-
This. This times a million.
He didn't decide. She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic.
-
This. This is the point many people aren't getting.
My father called me from Nashville, all upset after hearing Mark Belling discuss the issue at length when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh (taking McAdam's position, natch). What I said to my dad was. "If Dr. McAdams posted, 'I just read a research paper on end-of-life care written by [his granddaughter, a MU nursing student] and it was a steaming pile of worthless crap. I certainly hope no state is stupid enough to give her a nursing license.', would you think the professor's behavior was appropriate? Because that, at its core, is what he did to the philosophy TA."
This isn't about free speech. It doesn't matter what the subject matter was. It's that a professor publicly and unapologetically castigated a student. And I say that as a person who, on the continuum of conservative to liberal, would probably be spooning Chicos.
You are an excellent example of someone who can see beyond the political talking points involved and see that McAdams' actions were wrong. Thank you.
-
He didn't decide. She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic.
You're missing the point.
McAdams publicly chastised a student by name in his blog, most likely after already being told not to do this. That's what he is being fired for. Not for what she did first, or how she responded after. He is being judged by his actions alone. As it should be.
-
He didn't decide. She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic.
Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake? Most certainly. That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia." It simply means she made a mistake.
-
Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake? Most certainly. That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia." It simply means she made a mistake.
And what we will never know is how the University disciplined her. Which I am positive it did, in some manner.
-
Oh did Abbate initially make a mistake? Most certainly. That hardly means "she shouldn't be involved in academia." It simply means she made a mistake.
Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach. I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.
And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student". This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad. This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university. Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.
-
This. This is the point many people aren't getting.
My father called me from Nashville, all upset after hearing Mark Belling discuss the issue at length when he filled in for Rush Limbaugh (taking McAdam's position, natch). What I said to my dad was. "If Dr. McAdams posted, 'I just read a research paper on end-of-life care written by [his granddaughter, a MU nursing student] and it was a steaming pile of worthless crap. I certainly hope no state is stupid enough to give her a nursing license.', would you think the professor's behavior was appropriate? Because that, at its core, is what he did to the philosophy TA."
This isn't about free speech. It doesn't matter what the subject matter was. It's that a professor publicly and unapologetically castigated a student. And I say that as a person who, on the continuum of conservative to liberal, would probably be spooning Chicos.
I wouldn't be so sure. I personally think it's grade A doucheness to publicly criticize the class management abilities of a professor-in-training, but he attacked a fellow faculty member who just so happened to be a student. That is his defense, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it is nevertheless defensible. If McAdams criticized a fellow political science professor on his blog, everyone would think "oh, that's just McAdams ranting again." But what if that political science professor were taking a statistics class at night? Should McAdams have to pull the blog post because the professor is technically a student? Is this an argument about what are the essential aspects of being a 'student'? You bet. And that is exactly the point. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.
Now, if McAdams had somehow obtained a copy of a term paper that she wrote and publicly bashed it, then I would unequivocally agree with you 100%. However, if she had made the paper public, say, on her own website, then that fundamentally changes the circumstances. And even in the latter scenario, I don't believe that should be grounds for dismissal. Douchebag move? Perhaps. But revocation of tenure? That strikes me as reactionary.
The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job. McAdams comes along and sees her make a freshman mistake--she nipped a controversial topic in the bud without much explanation. He takes to his blog and tells the world about it. In his eyes, he is castigating a peer--not a student. As McAdams sees it, if she wants to be a professor, she should be treated like one. Analogies are never perfect, but this would be like Lebron asking a low-major DI player "oh, so you want to play basketball? Well, suit up" and then Lebron dunks on him left and right, swatting his shots, crossing him over, etc. Again, douchebag move, but IMO not grounds for dismissal from the university. Note that, as Sultan pointed out, my opinion is 100% conditional upon what is publicly known. If those facts change, my opinion may as well.
Last point. At Marquette, in order for a grad student to fully teach a class (i.e., not a "mere" TA), that student needs to have completed all coursework and preliminary examination(s). At that stage, she is essentially a junior researcher, likely considered a candidate rather than a student. Note that this is not merely semantics. In academia, this distinction actually matters (unlike, say, MBA programs where 'candidate' is used for euphonic reasons). Again, I know all of this may sound like an argument of what the definition of 'student' is, but I think McAdams argument, namely 'I didn't criticize a student, I criticized a fellow faculty member' is not as ad hoc as it may seem.
-
And what we will never know is how the University disciplined her. Which I am positive it did, in some manner.
Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.
-
"I'll go with Taking PR Statements at Face Value for $2,000, Alex!"
No kidding.
Nothing to do with ideology. That's funny. Those who believe that go back and read that statement again with a skeptical eye (as you should always do), not what you want to believe it says.
Was his firing entirely based on teh subject matter? Perhaps not. Would he have been fired for the exact same actions if the subject matter were something other than gay marriages? I have serious doubts about that.
-
Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.
Or transferring out of Marquette.
-
Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach. I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.
And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student". This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad. This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university. Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.
Marquette University, and pretty much every higher education institution I have been associated with, disagree with your characterization of graduate students.
-
I wouldn't be so sure. I personally think it's grade A doucheness to publicly criticize the class management abilities of a professor-in-training, but he attacked a fellow faculty member who just so happened to be a student. That is his defense, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it is nevertheless defensible. If McAdams criticized a fellow political science professor on his blog, everyone would think "oh, that's just McAdams ranting again." But what if that political science professor were taking a statistics class at night? Should McAdams have to pull the blog post because the professor is technically a student? Is this an argument about what are the essential aspects of being a 'student'? You bet. And that is exactly the point. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.
Now, if McAdams had somehow obtained a copy of a term paper that she wrote and publicly bashed it, then I would unequivocally agree with you 100%. However, if she had made the paper public, say, on her own website, then that fundamentally changes the circumstances. And even in the latter scenario, I don't believe that should be grounds for dismissal. Douchebag move? Perhaps. But revocation of tenure? That strikes me as reactionary.
The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job. McAdams comes along and sees her make a freshman mistake--she nipped a controversial topic in the bud without much explanation. He takes to his blog and tells the world about it. In his eyes, he is castigating a peer--not a student. As McAdams sees it, if she wants to be a professor, she should be treated like one. Analogies are never perfect, but this would be like Lebron asking a low-major DI player "oh, so you want to play basketball? Well, suit up" and then Lebron dunks on him left and right, swatting his shots, crossing him over, etc. Again, douchebag move, but IMO not grounds for dismissal from the university. Note that, as Sultan pointed out, my opinion is 100% conditional upon what is publicly known. If those facts change, my opinion may as well.
Last point. At Marquette, in order for a grad student to fully teach a class (i.e., not a "mere" TA), that student needs to have completed all coursework and preliminary examination(s). At that stage, she is essentially a junior researcher, likely considered a candidate rather than a student. Note that this is not merely semantics. In academia, this distinction actually matters (unlike, say, MBA programs where 'candidate' is used for euphonic reasons). Again, I know all of this may sound like an argument of what the definition of 'student' is, but I think McAdams argument, namely 'I didn't criticize a student, I criticized a fellow faculty member' is not as ad hoc as it may seem.
All that matters is that Marquette's official policy, published well before this incident occurred, is that TAs are considered students first, and instructors second. Therefore, if there is a conflict between the two roles in any way, the role as student is the default. If McAdams didn't know this, as a decades-long tenured professor, he should have. My best guess is that he fired off this blog post half-cocked, and instead of apologizing or retracting his statements when he realized it was a violation of school policy, he decided to double down and play the Academic Freedom card.
-
Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.
Total red herring.
-
Oh please. Local media wouldn't give a damn about this if it were a conservative like McAdams or a professor as liberal as Nancy Snow. I mean, how much of a "PR disaster" was it when Marquette withdrew the offer to the Liberal Arts dean? After about a month, people moved on. It had no real impact on donations, admissions or among the faculty. This will be about the same.
As someone who works in PR for a university, this really is nothing. Belling and his ilk are easy to ignore, since they inflame quickly, but just as quickly move on. The only way it becomes an issue is if it gets to the national media and becomes a "cause" somehow - or it causes major donors to withdraw their support. (And it won't. Most donors are acutely aware of how colleagues should treat one another in the workplace.) News cycles are short. Even a lawsuit isn't that big of a deal - everyone gets sued these days.
Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK. On the other, you can't have a discussion about gay marriage.
If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?
-
Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK. On the other, you can't have a discussion about gay marriage.
If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?
Still missing the point that this isn't about gay marriage.
-
All that matters is that Marquette's official policy, published well before this incident occurred, is that TAs are considered students first, and instructors second. Therefore, if there is a conflict between the two roles in any way, the role as student is the default. If McAdams didn't know this, as a decades-long tenured professor, he should have. My best guess is that he fired off this blog post half-cocked, and instead of apologizing or retracting his statements when he realized it was a violation of school policy, he decided to double down and play the Academic Freedom card.
Ok, but does Marquette consider its graduate instructors as TAs?
-
Exactly. I have been involved in "PR disasters" a hell of a lot worse than this, and despite all the chicken littles worrying about it bleeding students or donations from the school, it simply didn't. A few months later, everyone pretty much forgot about it, and year later we hit record enrollment.
Sultan is likely spot on, here, although a lawsuit is a wildcard.
McAdams was a cancer on MU, and the chemotherapy will not be pretty, but in the end, the patient will be just fine.
-
Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach. I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.
And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student". This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad. This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university. Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.
Please read his other blog posts then. This isn't an isolated incident, he has ridiculed teachers in the past for the way they teach including a professor I had personally who was one of the best I've ever had at Marquette. This guy is a nut job and the administration reacted appropriately and did not rush things. This comment is very ignorant.
-
Sultan, doesn't it bother you that our beloved university talks out of both sides of it's *ss (oops, I meant mouth). On one hand, pulling back a job offer because of sexual orientation is OK. On the other, you can't have a discussion about gay marriage.
If the university was so supportive of gay rights, how did they ever conceive of withdrawing that employment offer?
It's not about gay marriage. AND, it's not even about having a discussion on gay marriage.
This is about a senior professor using his personal website to broadcast something he heard second hand about a TA's class.
It's unprofessional, and goes against the conduct policy.
IF McAdams really wanted to make a difference, he would have contacted the TA during regular business hours and maybe even discussed it with the department chair. That's a professional approach. If he didn't receive a satisfactory answer to his inquiries, then at that point, I'm not against airing the dirty laundry.
BUT, as it stands, McAdams caught wind of a juicy piece of liberalism, and he ran to his keyboard to tell everybody about it. Not cool. Not a good precedent to set.
-
Or maybe they thought that receiving death threats was punishment enough.
this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this. there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them ?-(
on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him? i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines? why i am asking? just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here. i know, what good does that do now...
-
Read my post again, I didn't say her handling of the issue means she shouldn't teach. I said that if she feels "harassed" by another university official disagreeing publicly with her teaching decisions, then maybe she shouldn't teach.
And let's cut the crap about her being just a "student". This isn't a bright-eyed undergrad. This is an adult vested with authority by the university to instruct students, issue grades, and represent the university. Her actions are a matter worthy of public comment.
Its not crap. She is a student, with none of the rights and privileges of faculty. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
-
Ok, but does Marquette consider its graduate instructors as TAs?
A graduate instructor, graduate assistant, and teaching assistant can all be used interchangeably in academia. Abbate was a student, a graduate student, but a student nonetheless.
The distinction between undergraduate and graduate student here is basically irrelevant, I don't know why McAdams' defenders keep falling back on that point. All students, undergraduates and graduate students, are adults. All should have the same basic protections.
-
I think the distinction of student comes when you are paying more for your education (or being scholarshipped more for it) than you are receiving from the university as payment. As a graduate student she was paying for an opportunity to learn how to run a class that makes her a student regardless of title or how much she earns as being a TA etc. Now if she were receiving more for payment than paying (covering eldon's argument of if a full time instructor happened to be taking a class) then that individual would be considered full faculty in my Mind.
this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this. there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them ?-(
on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him? i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines? why i am asking? just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here. i know, what good does that do now...
I don't think anyone in their right mind that is as liberal as her would respond risking Mcadams taking little portions of full quotes and using them out of context to fuel the fire.
-
this along with all the other immature threats that most here have seen-no one should ever have to be treated like this. there are kooks on every corner-short of someone really following through on any of the threats, i am just amazed at how someone could forward comments as such and sit back and feel good about them ?-(
on another note, i realize johnny didn't give cheryl much time to respond to his requests for her side of the story, but what other reason(s) would she not have at least tried to answer him? i'm thinking either she was busy and never got the requests or she didn't feel his requests deserved merit or advice of some sort along these lines? why i am asking? just thinking/wondering if that would have made any difference here. i know, what good does that do now...
It's simple. He just has to send her an email or contact her during business hours.
OR EVEN, GASP, Walk over and see her during office hours or after class.
This is what professionals do in the real world. Every. Damn. Day. I hold McAdams to the same standard I hold myself.
-
It's not about gay marriage. AND, it's not even about having a discussion on gay marriage.
This is about a senior professor using his personal website to broadcast something he heard second hand about a TA's class.
It's unprofessional, and goes against the conduct policy.
IF McAdams really wanted to make a difference, he would have contacted the TA during regular business hours and maybe even discussed it with the department chair. That's a professional approach. If he didn't receive a satisfactory answer to his inquiries, then at that point, I'm not against airing the dirty laundry.
BUT, as it stands, McAdams caught wind of a juicy piece of liberalism, and he ran to his keyboard to tell everybody about it. Not cool. Not a good precedent to set.
Does it go against MU's policy? Are grad instructors considered TAs? No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious. If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs. The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor. The sole instructor. It was her syllabus, her class.
-
I think the distinction of student comes when you are paying more for your education (or being scholarshipped more for it) than you are receiving from the university as payment. As a graduate student she was paying for an opportunity to learn how to run a class that makes her a student regardless of title or how much she earns as being a TA etc. Now if she were receiving more for payment than paying (covering eldon's argument of if a full time instructor happened to be taking a class) then that individual would be considered full faculty in my Mind.
Maybe in your mind, but not in reality. Whether they have full funding or not, graduate students are students. Period.
-
A graduate instructor, graduate assistant, and teaching assistant can all be used interchangeably in academia. Abbate was a student, a graduate student, but a student nonetheless.
The distinction between undergraduate and graduate student here is basically irrelevant, I don't know why McAdams' defenders keep falling back on that point. All students, undergraduates and graduate students, are adults. All should have the same basic protections.
Don't mistake my frankness for disrespect, but this is false.
-
Does it go against MU's policy? Are grad instructors considered TAs? No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious. If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs. The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor. The sole instructor. It was her syllabus, her class.
Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.
-
Don't mistake my frankness for disrespect, but this is false.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. A "Teaching Assistant" (helps with the professor who is the primary teacher of the class) and and a "Graduate Instructor" (leads the class) are obviously different roles. My point was in all instances, the person still maintains the same status with the university as a STUDENT.
-
Does it go against MU's policy? Are grad instructors considered TAs? No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious. If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs. The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor. The sole instructor. It was her syllabus, her class.
Grad students teach classes for their advising professors so technically they're TAs. I don't know what they're considered but usually teaching a class is apart of a grad students curriculum.
-
It's simple. He just has to send her an email or contact her during business hours.
OR EVEN, GASP, Walk over and see her during office hours or after class.
This is what professionals do in the real world. Every. Damn. Day. I hold McAdams to the same standard I hold myself.
Key distinction "in the real world." Such a place is only fanciful and distant to those in academia.
-
Marquette has violated a number of its own policies in an attempt to befuddle and fire McAdams. It is embarrassing and dishonorable to violate the same policies that are in place to protect students and faculty. I believe it is Holtz that should be relieved of his duties.
-
Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.
That's debatable. To teach at Marquette you need to be a PhD candidate, i.e., done with all of your coursework and preliminary examination(s). Unless, of course, things have changed in the past 5 or so years.
Again, this may be seen as quibbling over the definition of 'student', but McAdams can make a defensible case that she was not a student, or at least not acting as a student in her role as an instructor. Of course, I would defer to whatever Marquette's official policy on the definition of 'student'.
-
Maybe in your mind, but not in reality. Whether they have full funding or not, graduate students are students. Period.
I agree however I have to admit that if a full time instructor were to be taking night classes to work on another degree I would consider that instructor an instructor first still able to be criticized
-
Marquette has violated a number of its own policies in an attempt to befuddle and fire McAdams. It is embarrassing and dishonorable to violate the same policies that are in place to protect students and faculty. I believe it is Holtz that should be relieved of his duties.
Is that you john McAdams? Seriously, on what basis do you make your statement? This has been an ongoing problem.
-
That's debatable. To teach at Marquette you need to be a PhD candidate, i.e., done with all of your coursework and preliminary examination(s). Unless, of course, things have changed in the past 5 or so years.
Again, this may be seen as quibbling over the definition of 'student', but McAdams can make a defensible case that she was not a student, or at least not acting as a student in her role as an instructor. Of course, I would defer to whatever Marquette's official policy on the definition of 'student'.
I'm going to take Lovell at his word that Abbate was indeed a student at the time of the incident.
-
Whether or not she was an instructor or a TA, she was still a student.
So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?
-
Does it go against MU's policy? Are grad instructors considered TAs? No snark here, I honestly don't know and am curious. If I had to bet, I would guess that grad instructors are not TAs. The philosophy instructor was not assisting another class with grading or holding office hours, she was the instructor. The sole instructor. It was her syllabus, her class.
I'll be perfect honest, I haven't read nor have I signed MU's conduct policy. I'm no an MU employee.
But, I would bet MU is going to fall back on some sort of general language about professionalism and workplace conduct. I'm not exactly sure how MU's policy reads, so if somebody knows the specifics, feel free to share.
As an isolated incident, this might not be a big deal, but if McAdams had other complaints & warnings on file, well, then this seems pretty simple.
As far as a TA vs professor, I'm not even sure that's important (to me). While I think it's entirely reasonable for Professors to have different views on topics, and debate the merits, I don't think taking second hand information to a blog is a really a good use of that type of academic freedom.
I like the idea of a conservative professor(s) on campus, but I don't need them using MU staff to create blog fodder.
-
So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?
Why should this information be on your transcript?
-
Why should this information be on your transcript?
One would imagine courses taught by students are less valuable than those taught by professors?
-
Why should this information be on your transcript?
The point is, she is giving undergraduates official grades from Marquette University which impact students' GPA, honors, academic recognitions, etc. When she is teaching a class at Marquette University, she is an instructor, not a student. The rest is just semantics.
-
So when I look on my transcript, will it show which classes were taught by "students" and which were taught by faculty?
Fine, she's a professor.
Does it really change anything?
Do we want professors publicly critiquing other professors using second hand information? It's just not a good idea.
You have a beef, take it through the proper channels.
Here's a scenario: What if I hate my professor, so I go to McAdams and give him a bunch of bologna about how my professor is stifling my conservative views. McAdams runs to the keyboard and trashes that professor.
Now, the truth will come out, but some damage has already been done, no?
McAdams conduct is unprofessional, and harmful to his employer and to his co-workers.
-
On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"
January 21, 2015
Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Re: Dr. John McAdams
Dear Ralph:
Although we met over a week ago, I have still not heard from you. While I am waiting, I thought it would be useful to reply to Dean Holz’ January 2 letter to Dr. McAdams. If it reflects the university’s position – and not just Dean Holz’ personal views – I am afraid that we are headed for litigation and continued controversy that I fear will profoundly damage Marquette.
The need for a response is bolstered by the article that appeared in Tuesday’s Journal Sentinel. In it, a university spokesperson says that Dr. McAdams remains banned from campus and implies that this is somehow necessary for the “safety” of students. I am normally not one given over to harsh adjectives, but this is preposterous.
In his letter, Dean Holz says, for the first time, that the allegedly improper conduct by Dr. McAdams was to identify Cheryl Abbate as the instructor who told a student that opposition to gay marriage would not be tolerated in her class. He does not claim that anything that Dr. McAdams said is false. He does not say that it was uncivil or constituted “harassment” under university rules. It was wrong, he says, because, even though Marquette made Ms. Abatte solely responsible for the class in question and placed her in a position of authority over undergraduates, she was still “only” a graduate student. As such, she apparently cannot be publicly criticized.
It is, of course, customary for persons engaged in debate or criticism to identify the person with whom they differ. Perhaps Dean Holz feels that, in this case, Dr. McAdams should not have done so. But regardless of what Dean Holz might prefer, Marquette does not retain the same level of discretion over its tenured faculty that an employer would normally have over its employees. Section 306.01 of the Faculty Statutes provides that the University may suspend the appointment of a faculty member only for cause as defined in Sections 306.02 and 306.03.
Dean Holz calls Dr. McAdams’ conduct “dishonorable and irresponsible,” presumably intending to invoke the Faculty Statutes’ description of conduct that may constitute cause for termination. There is no sense in which Dr. McAdams conduct can reasonably be called either of these things. Even were it otherwise, Marquette has made absolutely clear that what he writes may not be the basis for termination. Section 306.03 specifically states that in no case shall “cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” These Faculty Statutes are expressly incorporated into Dr. McAdams’ contract with Marquette.
Under this contract, Dr. McAdams has been promised at least the same level of protections as university professors employed by the government receive under the First Amendment. That freedom has been described by various courts in various ways. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S.234, 250 (1957), the Supreme Court said:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues,’ (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection. [citations omitted]”
Apparently Dean Holz believes that there is an exception – unstated in or to be reasonably implied from the Faculty Statutes – for speech responding to the arguments of graduate students – even when Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. But that is surely not the case. In fact, the university’s spokesperson was quoted in the media as saying otherwise. Faculty, he said, are free to “voice an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class.” Perhaps Dean Holz thinks there is some unwritten (and, as far as we know, unstated) codicil somewhere that says no one must publicly identify a graduate instructor – even if, as it was here, one is responding to a position that the instructor expressed from a position of authority.
There is no such codicil. As we pointed out in our previous letter addressed to President Lovell, Dr. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view. Punishing him for doing so violated his right to academic freedom.
Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.
Dean Holz complains that Ms. Abbatte received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous - criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. Abbatte, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.
But whatever the provenance of these nasty comments or the reasonableness of the university’s response, academic freedom is not limited by the responses it provokes. One would hope, in light of recent events in France, that the university does not believe that freedom of expression must be restricted less it provoke illiberal extremists.
During our conversation, you took some time to “defend” Ms. Abbatte’s comments, claiming that she offered to allow students to address the issue of same sex marriage in a subsequent class and denying (without explanation) that she meant what she quite clearly said. At no time did she qualify her remarks to the student by indicating, for example, that one could not oppose same sex marriage under Rawls’ equal liberty principle or that only certain types of arguments against same sex marriage are homophobic and offensive. You were critical of the undergraduate student to whom she expressed the views in question. We could debate these points but they don’t matter. Dr. McAdams’ academic freedom is not qualified by whether or not he was “right” or by what we think of the conduct of others.
Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”
Is it the university’s position that Dr. McAdams has done something other than voice an opinion? If so, we have not heard it say so. That leads us to yet another topic – the procedural irregularity of what is being done to Dr. McAdams. It says it has not suspended him (that would require compliance with the provisions of section 307 of the Faculty Statutes), so what, exactly is it doing and where is the authority for doing it?
In addition to the substantive problems with the university’s actions, it has failed to provide Dr. McAdams with the procedural protections that his contract requires. It has suspended him in violation of the Faculty Statutes and in breach of his contract. The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.
Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university. He respects the right of Dean Holz and Ms. Abbatte and anyone else to disagree with him and criticize his views. But I can assure that, if the university wants a national controversy over this, it shall have it. If it wants to make itself a poster child for overweening political correctness and Dr. McAdams a martyr to the cause of free expression, it need only continue on its current course.
We have already submitted a formal objection on behalf of Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams expects the University to reverse Dean Holz’ actions to date, to formally reinstate Dr. McAdams and reserves his right to proceed against the University if it does not do so promptly.
Very truly yours.
Richard Esenberg
President and General Counsel
We’ll have some further comments later. At the moment, Esenberg’s letter stands as a cogent rebuke to Marquette.
-
On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"
January 21, 2015
Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Re: Dr. John McAdams
Dear Ralph:
Although we met over a week ago, I have still not heard from you. While I am waiting, I thought it would be useful to reply to Dean Holz’ January 2 letter to Dr. McAdams. If it reflects the university’s position – and not just Dean Holz’ personal views – I am afraid that we are headed for litigation and continued controversy that I fear will profoundly damage Marquette.
The need for a response is bolstered by the article that appeared in Tuesday’s Journal Sentinel. In it, a university spokesperson says that Dr. McAdams remains banned from campus and implies that this is somehow necessary for the “safety” of students. I am normally not one given over to harsh adjectives, but this is preposterous.
In his letter, Dean Holz says, for the first time, that the allegedly improper conduct by Dr. McAdams was to identify Cheryl Abbate as the instructor who told a student that opposition to gay marriage would not be tolerated in her class. He does not claim that anything that Dr. McAdams said is false. He does not say that it was uncivil or constituted “harassment” under university rules. It was wrong, he says, because, even though Marquette made Ms. Abatte solely responsible for the class in question and placed her in a position of authority over undergraduates, she was still “only” a graduate student. As such, she apparently cannot be publicly criticized.
It is, of course, customary for persons engaged in debate or criticism to identify the person with whom they differ. Perhaps Dean Holz feels that, in this case, Dr. McAdams should not have done so. But regardless of what Dean Holz might prefer, Marquette does not retain the same level of discretion over its tenured faculty that an employer would normally have over its employees. Section 306.01 of the Faculty Statutes provides that the University may suspend the appointment of a faculty member only for cause as defined in Sections 306.02 and 306.03.
Dean Holz calls Dr. McAdams’ conduct “dishonorable and irresponsible,” presumably intending to invoke the Faculty Statutes’ description of conduct that may constitute cause for termination. There is no sense in which Dr. McAdams conduct can reasonably be called either of these things. Even were it otherwise, Marquette has made absolutely clear that what he writes may not be the basis for termination. Section 306.03 specifically states that in no case shall “cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” These Faculty Statutes are expressly incorporated into Dr. McAdams’ contract with Marquette.
Under this contract, Dr. McAdams has been promised at least the same level of protections as university professors employed by the government receive under the First Amendment. That freedom has been described by various courts in various ways. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S.234, 250 (1957), the Supreme Court said:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues,’ (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection. [citations omitted]”
Apparently Dean Holz believes that there is an exception – unstated in or to be reasonably implied from the Faculty Statutes – for speech responding to the arguments of graduate students – even when Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. But that is surely not the case. In fact, the university’s spokesperson was quoted in the media as saying otherwise. Faculty, he said, are free to “voice an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class.” Perhaps Dean Holz thinks there is some unwritten (and, as far as we know, unstated) codicil somewhere that says no one must publicly identify a graduate instructor – even if, as it was here, one is responding to a position that the instructor expressed from a position of authority.
There is no such codicil. As we pointed out in our previous letter addressed to President Lovell, Dr. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view. Punishing him for doing so violated his right to academic freedom.
Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.
Dean Holz complains that Ms. Abbatte received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous - criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. Abbatte, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.
But whatever the provenance of these nasty comments or the reasonableness of the university’s response, academic freedom is not limited by the responses it provokes. One would hope, in light of recent events in France, that the university does not believe that freedom of expression must be restricted less it provoke illiberal extremists.
During our conversation, you took some time to “defend” Ms. Abbatte’s comments, claiming that she offered to allow students to address the issue of same sex marriage in a subsequent class and denying (without explanation) that she meant what she quite clearly said. At no time did she qualify her remarks to the student by indicating, for example, that one could not oppose same sex marriage under Rawls’ equal liberty principle or that only certain types of arguments against same sex marriage are homophobic and offensive. You were critical of the undergraduate student to whom she expressed the views in question. We could debate these points but they don’t matter. Dr. McAdams’ academic freedom is not qualified by whether or not he was “right” or by what we think of the conduct of others.
Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”
Is it the university’s position that Dr. McAdams has done something other than voice an opinion? If so, we have not heard it say so. That leads us to yet another topic – the procedural irregularity of what is being done to Dr. McAdams. It says it has not suspended him (that would require compliance with the provisions of section 307 of the Faculty Statutes), so what, exactly is it doing and where is the authority for doing it?
In addition to the substantive problems with the university’s actions, it has failed to provide Dr. McAdams with the procedural protections that his contract requires. It has suspended him in violation of the Faculty Statutes and in breach of his contract. The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.
Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university. He respects the right of Dean Holz and Ms. Abbatte and anyone else to disagree with him and criticize his views. But I can assure that, if the university wants a national controversy over this, it shall have it. If it wants to make itself a poster child for overweening political correctness and Dr. McAdams a martyr to the cause of free expression, it need only continue on its current course.
We have already submitted a formal objection on behalf of Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams expects the University to reverse Dean Holz’ actions to date, to formally reinstate Dr. McAdams and reserves his right to proceed against the University if it does not do so promptly.
Very truly yours.
Richard Esenberg
President and General Counsel
We’ll have some further comments later. At the moment, Esenberg’s letter stands as a cogent rebuke to Marquette.
This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.
-
I ran this situation by my parents who are tenured teachers, not professors mind you but they have both been educators for over 25 years now. The compared it to having a student teacher and that McAdams is compete in the wrong. These are two people who are protected by tenure and like those protections but they said that in this situation, he has no right to be protected by the actions that he did.
-
This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.
This +1000. That's what he's paid to do.
-
This is just his lawyer spinning it. Nothing new here.
Summary:
"Yeah, my client broke the rules, even after repeated warnings, but he thinks those rules suck, so he shouldn't have to abide by them."
-
Summary:
"Yeah, my client broke the rules, even after repeated warnings, but he thinks those rules suck, so he shouldn't have to abide by them."
Summary:
"Marquette is in violation of its own rules. Not only has Marquette failed to produce evidence to the contrary, it will continue to diminish the rights of its students and faculty."
-
The philosophy grad student is essentially an apprentice professor, still learning on the job.
Thank you for using this word. I think it's the best description for the middle ground in the murky "Is she a student/Is she a professor?" debate.
That being the case, I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake." What do you think the students in our nursing program would do if their instructors decided to make their clinical mistakes public domain?
-
Summary:
"Marquette is in violation of its own rules. Not only has Marquette failed to produce evidence to the contrary, it will continue to diminish the rights of its students and faculty."
Except every student agrees with this decision. Even a lot of the hard core right wingers I know...I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.
-
"Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university"
Can't imagine he was able to write this with a straight face.
Whatever you think of the guy and his positions, McAdams has largely built his reputation/following largely upon seeking conflict with the university.
-
On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"
January 21, 2015
Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Re: Dr. John McAdams
Dear Ralph:
Although we met over a week ago, I have still not heard from you. While I am waiting, I thought it would be useful to reply to Dean Holz’ January 2 letter to Dr. McAdams. If it reflects the university’s position – and not just Dean Holz’ personal views – I am afraid that we are headed for litigation and continued controversy that I fear will profoundly damage Marquette.
The need for a response is bolstered by the article that appeared in Tuesday’s Journal Sentinel. In it, a university spokesperson says that Dr. McAdams remains banned from campus and implies that this is somehow necessary for the “safety” of students. I am normally not one given over to harsh adjectives, but this is preposterous.
In his letter, Dean Holz says, for the first time, that the allegedly improper conduct by Dr. McAdams was to identify Cheryl Abbate as the instructor who told a student that opposition to gay marriage would not be tolerated in her class. He does not claim that anything that Dr. McAdams said is false. He does not say that it was uncivil or constituted “harassment” under university rules. It was wrong, he says, because, even though Marquette made Ms. Abatte solely responsible for the class in question and placed her in a position of authority over undergraduates, she was still “only” a graduate student. As such, she apparently cannot be publicly criticized.
It is, of course, customary for persons engaged in debate or criticism to identify the person with whom they differ. Perhaps Dean Holz feels that, in this case, Dr. McAdams should not have done so. But regardless of what Dean Holz might prefer, Marquette does not retain the same level of discretion over its tenured faculty that an employer would normally have over its employees. Section 306.01 of the Faculty Statutes provides that the University may suspend the appointment of a faculty member only for cause as defined in Sections 306.02 and 306.03.
Dean Holz calls Dr. McAdams’ conduct “dishonorable and irresponsible,” presumably intending to invoke the Faculty Statutes’ description of conduct that may constitute cause for termination. There is no sense in which Dr. McAdams conduct can reasonably be called either of these things. Even were it otherwise, Marquette has made absolutely clear that what he writes may not be the basis for termination. Section 306.03 specifically states that in no case shall “cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” These Faculty Statutes are expressly incorporated into Dr. McAdams’ contract with Marquette.
Under this contract, Dr. McAdams has been promised at least the same level of protections as university professors employed by the government receive under the First Amendment. That freedom has been described by various courts in various ways. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S.234, 250 (1957), the Supreme Court said:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues,’ (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection. [citations omitted]”
Apparently Dean Holz believes that there is an exception – unstated in or to be reasonably implied from the Faculty Statutes – for speech responding to the arguments of graduate students – even when Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. But that is surely not the case. In fact, the university’s spokesperson was quoted in the media as saying otherwise. Faculty, he said, are free to “voice an opinion about whether a potentially controversial offensive subject should be allowed by a TA to be discussed in class.” Perhaps Dean Holz thinks there is some unwritten (and, as far as we know, unstated) codicil somewhere that says no one must publicly identify a graduate instructor – even if, as it was here, one is responding to a position that the instructor expressed from a position of authority.
There is no such codicil. As we pointed out in our previous letter addressed to President Lovell, Dr. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view. Punishing him for doing so violated his right to academic freedom.
Dean Holz claims that Dr. McAdams has been “asked, advised and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with [his] blog posts.” Apart from the fact that there would be no basis for doing so – particularly with respect to a person that the university has placed in charge of a class – this is simply false. Some months ago, Dean Holz told Dr. McAdams that representatives of a Palestinian student organization had felt “intimidated” during an interview by Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz’ letter dated September 24, 2014 says that he “trusts” Dr. McAdams will be “mindful” of the need to be sensitive with respect to his questions and status as a tenured faculty member. (Dr. McAdams believes that he was.) The letter says nothing about not publicizing any students’ names – much less those that the university has placed in charge of courses.
Dean Holz complains that Ms. Abbatte received nasty e-mails from unknown persons after her views were exposed. That is regrettable just as it is regrettable that Dr. McAdams and many others receive hostile – and often anonymous - criticisms in response to the positions that they take. But there is also no “heckler’s veto” exception to the university’s guarantee of academic freedom. Dr. McAdams has blogged on matters related to the university for many years, often sharply criticizing persons with whom he disagrees. None of these persons were ever subject to threatening e-mails. If this was the first time, the responses were “forseeable” only in the sense that, human nature being what it is, one’s views will sometimes elicit uncivil responses. Certainly Ms. Abbatte, if she wishes a career engaged in public and academic discourse over matters of ethics, is going to have to get used to this. Judging from her personal website, she is certainly capable of fending for herself.
But whatever the provenance of these nasty comments or the reasonableness of the university’s response, academic freedom is not limited by the responses it provokes. One would hope, in light of recent events in France, that the university does not believe that freedom of expression must be restricted less it provoke illiberal extremists.
During our conversation, you took some time to “defend” Ms. Abbatte’s comments, claiming that she offered to allow students to address the issue of same sex marriage in a subsequent class and denying (without explanation) that she meant what she quite clearly said. At no time did she qualify her remarks to the student by indicating, for example, that one could not oppose same sex marriage under Rawls’ equal liberty principle or that only certain types of arguments against same sex marriage are homophobic and offensive. You were critical of the undergraduate student to whom she expressed the views in question. We could debate these points but they don’t matter. Dr. McAdams’ academic freedom is not qualified by whether or not he was “right” or by what we think of the conduct of others.
Finally, as to the comments reported in yesterday’s newspaper, spokesperson Dorrington is reported to have said that, in banning Dr. McAdams from campus, the “safety of our students and campus community is our top priority.” He adds that the university will not tolerate “abuse” or “harassment” of students. Tell me, is it the university’s position that disagreement with someone constitutes endangering their “safety? Is it the university’s position that criticism is tantamount to “abuse” and “harassment?” These would be extraordinary positions and hard to reconcile with Mr. Dorrington’s concession that “a professor would not be subject to a review of this nature simply for voicing an opinion.”
Is it the university’s position that Dr. McAdams has done something other than voice an opinion? If so, we have not heard it say so. That leads us to yet another topic – the procedural irregularity of what is being done to Dr. McAdams. It says it has not suspended him (that would require compliance with the provisions of section 307 of the Faculty Statutes), so what, exactly is it doing and where is the authority for doing it?
In addition to the substantive problems with the university’s actions, it has failed to provide Dr. McAdams with the procedural protections that his contract requires. It has suspended him in violation of the Faculty Statutes and in breach of his contract. The University has publicly suggested that Dr. McAdams has engaged in an expression of “hate or abuse.” Spokesperson Dorrington has implied that his presence on campus would endanger students and this conduct somehow constitutes “abuse” and “harassment.” These statements are false and defamatory, and have aggravated the injury to Dr. McAdams. Dean Holz now says that Dr. McAdams has engaged in conduct that is dishonorable and irresponsible. If Dean Holz has repeated those words to any third party it would be a further act of defamation.
Ralph, Dr. McAdams does not desire litigation or to be in a position of conflict with the university. He respects the right of Dean Holz and Ms. Abbatte and anyone else to disagree with him and criticize his views. But I can assure that, if the university wants a national controversy over this, it shall have it. If it wants to make itself a poster child for overweening political correctness and Dr. McAdams a martyr to the cause of free expression, it need only continue on its current course.
We have already submitted a formal objection on behalf of Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams expects the University to reverse Dean Holz’ actions to date, to formally reinstate Dr. McAdams and reserves his right to proceed against the University if it does not do so promptly.
Very truly yours.
Richard Esenberg
President and General Counsel
We’ll have some further comments later. At the moment, Esenberg’s letter stands as a cogent rebuke to Marquette.
Thanks for posting Blue. As others have said, the sole purpose of the letter is to serve as an advocacy of Dr. McAdams position. It's important for folks to know that counsel's job is to set the stage regardless of the merits of his arguments. From a tactical standpoint, I'd refrain from other public comments if I were Marquette. No doubt they are similarly ably represented by outside counsel and probably have been on this matter since the situation developed late last fall.
-
Thank you for using this word. I think it's the best description for the middle ground in the murky "Is she a student/Is she a professor?" debate.
That being the case, I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake." What do you think the students in our nursing program would do if their instructors decided to make their clinical mistakes public domain?
+1 Excellent analogy.
-
This +1000. That's what he's paid to do.
Absolutely correct (yet at the same time comical and absurd that some feel Lovell's statement should be taken at face value. He's paid to do the same thing.).
-
Oh please. Local media wouldn't give a damn about this if it were a conservative like McAdams or a professor as liberal as Nancy Snow. I mean, how much of a "PR disaster" was it when Marquette withdrew the offer to the Liberal Arts dean? After about a month, people moved on. It had no real impact on donations, admissions or among the faculty. This will be about the same.
As someone who works in PR for a university, this really is nothing. Belling and his ilk are easy to ignore, since they inflame quickly, but just as quickly move on. The only way it becomes an issue is if it gets to the national media and becomes a "cause" somehow - or it causes major donors to withdraw their support. (And it won't. Most donors are acutely aware of how colleagues should treat one another in the workplace.) News cycles are short. Even a lawsuit isn't that big of a deal - everyone gets sued these days.
To this day, people in Seattle associate Marquette University with Jodi O'Brien. But neither shrillness nor duration of public discourse should be the gauge or barometer of the inherent stupidity or unfairness of a bad decision. Marquette shamed itself on the national stage with Jodi O'Brien. The McAdams situation reinforces that reputation for profound imprudence and ineptitude.
-
F uck Marquette. This is shameful and embarassing
Damn right it is.
Academic freedom is ok....as long as you are talking about what they want you to talk about. The double standards continue.
I remember this from the Washington Post a number of years ago.
Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.
The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).
The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.
"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."
-
I will say this. No doubt MU has exhaustively looked at the issues associated with 1) academic freedom, 2) employee harassment and intimidation and the rules governing it, 3) the status of Abbatte as a 'student', etc. via hundreds of man hours through its own outside counsel and has decided to proceed as it did. Ultimately it'll be for the courts to decide.
-
I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake."
I take it you were never in Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT.) Public humiliation is an effective motivator. There is a reason the washout rate for UPT exceeds 60%. Not everybody has the right stuff to be given the keys to an F16 Viper.
Maybe Cheryl Abbate should never be given responsibility over students. Her behavior as regards academic freedom and intellectual integrity was found wanting.
-
Is there a bottom line here? I think it all depends on who presents the best argument. Was Cheryl abate an instructor or a student? Freedom of speech or not? Did mccadams conduct put marquette's safety at risk? What I am seeing here mostly is if one likes mccadams, he's cool, if not, get out! There are going to be a lot of precedent setting issues being established here. Either way, mccadams is damaged goods to Marquette. "Guilty as sin, free as a bird"? Only works for Some
-
Thanks for posting Blue. As others have said, the sole purpose of the letter is to serve as an advocacy of Dr. McAdams position. It's important for folks to know that counsel's job is to set the stage regardless of the merits of his arguments. From a tactical standpoint, I'd refrain from other public comments if I were Marquette. No doubt they are similarly ably represented by outside counsel and probably have been on this matter since the situation developed late last fall.
Let me be clear, this is not a left vs right political argument. Blanket statements such as, "every student agrees with this decision" are false and show a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Marquette has failed to address this publicly because it is in the wrong. The university will hide behind "details of personnel matters" in an attempt to shield itself from criticism.
Holz's letter to McAdams on January 30th addressed some of the issues and went into detail about Marquette's perspective. Holz cites a 1994 statement by the American Association of University Professors. Unfortunately for Holz, a post by John Wilson on Academe, the blog of the AAUP, said that Holz is incorrect on the association's position. "This is a complete distortion of the AAUP’s statements," Wilson wrote. "Tolerance requires that a university not fire professors for their expression. Marquette is perfectly free to condemn McAdams for an alleged breach of civility, but not to punish him. And although some faculty might legitimately fear being criticized by McAdams, no one has a right to be free from criticism, or to punish McAdams for their own decision to self-censor."
-
I will say this. No doubt MU has exhaustively looked at the issues associated with 1) academic freedom, 2) employee harassment and intimidation and the rules governing it, 3) the status of Abbatte as a 'student', etc. via hundreds of man hours through its own outside counsel and has decided to proceed as it did. Ultimately it'll be for the courts to decide.
If this termination was on the advice of outside counsel, MU should look for new lawyers. The response should have been to issue a public reprimand, add a code provision on publication of names of undergraduates, graduate students and graduate instructors names, and move on: no lawsuits, no major PR blowback, and you appease critics of McAdams.
-
Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today. I wasn't going to go, but will now.
-
Did you not read Lovell's statement I posted? Nothing to do with ideology. It's about respect and accountability in the workplace, something McAdams has lacked for apparently decades.
Oh please.
It's more like people don't feel respected when someone has a different viewpoint and publicly states it.....suddenly they are not respected and something must be done.
Some people would find your avatar offensive and disrespectful...I think it's funny....great SNL skit, but someone somewhere is going to be offended or feel disrespected.
-
Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today. I wasn't going to go, but will now.
I give you my proxy.
-
Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today. I wasn't going to go, but will now.
I hope that he is pressed on the issue. It is important that he understand the gravity of such a poor decision by the university.
-
I'm not convinced any professor should have blanket immunity from dismissal for all but the most grievous of offenses. In other words: I'm skeptical of tenure as an employment system.
(yes I'm aware that unless ALL universities ended the practice NO universities will from an arms race perspective)
Totally agree. Tenure is BS. That's part of my concern here. Who is protected, who isn't will always have political undertones, ESPECIALLY when you see the makeup of academia. Which is what is ultimately so ironic....political diversity is nowhere to be found at institutions that do nothing but scream about....diversity.
-
If this termination was on the advice of outside counsel, MU should look for new lawyers. The response should have been to issue a public reprimand, add a code provision on publication of names of undergraduates, graduate students and graduate instructors names, and move on: no lawsuits, no major PR blowback, and you appease critics of McAdams.
Sometimes the easy way out isn't the answer. I'm not in any way suggesting your strategy isn't meritorious. I'm simply saying that MU has absolutely studied the case with outside counsel and believes in the position they've taken.
-
I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.
So you want to silence someone because they have a viewpoint that you don't agree with?
How's Boulder, Ms. Abbate? ;)
-
Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today. I wasn't going to go, but will now.
The good news and bad news is that money talks.
You want to make a statement? Pull your donations and write a letter explaining why you're pulling it. If millions of dollars are pulled, then MU will likely change their tune.
It's the double edged sword we face when we support a private institution.
-
Is there a bottom line here? I think it all depends on who presents the best argument. Was Cheryl abate an instructor or a student? Freedom of speech or not? Did mccadams conduct put marquette's safety at risk? What I am seeing here mostly is if one likes mccadams, he's cool, if not, get out! There are going to be a lot of precedent setting issues being established here. Either way, mccadams is damaged goods to Marquette. "Guilty as sin, free as a bird"? Only works for Some
It's funny rocket. I wonder if I am in the minority here. I had John at least 3 times for class back in the day and would be mostly aligned with his political viewpoint. I'm not sure I would have terminated him with the limited facts I have but I can see why the university chose to head in that direction. No doubt your series of questions will be the issues litigated.
-
The good news and bad news is that money talks.
You want to make a statement? Pull your donations and write a letter explaining why you're pulling it. If millions of dollars are pulled, then MU will likely change their tune.
It's the double edged sword we face when we support a private institution.
If this is indeed headed to litigation, legal fees will also be incurred. Only one way to pay those bills.
-
Except every student agrees with this decision. Even a lot of the hard core right wingers I know...I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.
So Blue, are you John?
-
If this is indeed headed to litigation, legal fees will also be incurred. Only one way to pay those bills.
My guess is that MU has good lawyers on retainer.
This case won't be free... but they wouldn't have dismissed McAdams unless they were sure about their case.
-
On January 15, McAdams posted the transcript of his attorney's letter to MU. I recommend reading it in its entirety. It provides better depth and context to the situation instead of, "He's a real mean guy. I don't like him!"
January 21, 2015
Ralph Weber
Gass, Weber and Mullins
309 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Re: Dr. John McAdams
Ralph Weber....his dad was in the history department as a professor. One of my favorite professors ever at MU. Worked with the CIA on cryptography. He and his son (the attorney above) published a book on Ronald Reagan called the Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan.
Ralph (attorney), really great guy. He worked with us extensively back in the day to get Mia Hamm out to Marquette for a clinic along with 3 or 4 other members of the women's US team. Ralph made it happen and then helped set up some fund raising opportunities for Mia's brother Garrett, who was dying of a rare blood disease (he passed in 1997). At the time, Ralph was with Kravitt, Gass, and Weber....still have a sweatshirt he gave me back in the day.
I also had Dr. McAdams as a prof, enjoyed his classes very much. Hate to see this go to litigation, but seems inevitable which will be bad for MU to some extent.
-
Except every student agrees with this decision. Even a lot of the hard core right wingers I know...I seriously you think you may be McAdams and if so please get off this site cause you shouldn't be associated with Marquette in any spectrum.
Source?
Wait, you said every student agrees, and the very next sentence you say "even a lot"....that doesn't sound like every.
-
Come on, the real reason he's getting canned is because this is MU's opportunity to get rid of someone who has persistently criticized the university at every chance he has had for YEARS. The 'gay marriage' issue is a red herring. If MU didn't have to prop up pretext to get around the asinine existence of tenure he'd have been gone long long ago.
Think of it this way, could any one of you criticize your employer with impunity like McAdams did for as long as he did and still have a job? If your answer is yes, then you're lucky enough to have the protection of the archaic tenure system.
-
So Blue, are you John?
If there is one thing you should have learned by now, John McAdams does not hide behind anonymous aliases behind the safety of the internet.
-
I will say this. No doubt MU has exhaustively looked at the issues associated with 1) academic freedom, 2) employee harassment and intimidation and the rules governing it, 3) the status of Abbatte as a 'student', etc. via hundreds of man hours through its own outside counsel and has decided to proceed as it did. Ultimately it'll be for the courts to decide.
Marquette's legal acumen on some issues....like reporting sexual assaults....hasn't exactly been top notch in some of these cases.
-
Thank you for using this word. I think it's the best description for the middle ground in the murky "Is she a student/Is she a professor?" debate.
That being the case, I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake." What do you think the students in our nursing program would do if their instructors decided to make their clinical mistakes public domain?
Let me try to rebut the bold, each in turn.
*In my opinion, the fact that it is debatable whether we can truly disentangle a graduate student's role as a teacher vs role as a student means that McAdams should not be fired.
*How are you using 'acceptable'? I believe that McAdams actions may violate social norms and in that regard you could argue that they are unacceptable. But I do not think that violating social norms are grounds for tenure revocation and dismissal. Keeping McAdams on the job would not necessarily mean that Marquette finds his actions "acceptable."
*The key word in your analogy is 'instructor'. Professors as well as professors-to-be do not have instructors. The philosophy department doesn't send in a senior faculty member to supervise her teaching (at least, not on a regular basis), as happens in, say, medicine.
-
If there is one thing you should have learned by now, John McAdams does not hide behind anonymous aliases behind the safety of the internet.
Hmmmm. A non answer if there ever was one. ;)
-
My guess is that MU has good lawyers on retainer.
This case won't be free... but they wouldn't have dismissed McAdams unless they were sure about their case.
If Marquette does indeed lose a wrongful termination suit (I hope McAdams does not settle), he would be entitled to damages. I believe that means his legal fees would also be covered by the university.
-
If there is one thing you should have learned by now, John McAdams does not hide behind anonymous aliases behind the safety of the internet.
Everyone knows he subscribes to the single shooter theory. He'd never be a grassy knoll kind of guy.
-
Marquette's legal acumen on some issues....like reporting sexual assaults....hasn't exactly been top notch in some of these cases.
True dat.
-
Thank you for using this word. I think it's the best description for the middle ground in the murky "Is she a student/Is she a professor?" debate.
That being the case, I chalenge you to find another professional apprenticeship - medical residency, engineer-in-training, etc. - where it is perfectly acceptable to publicly berate an apprentice for a "freshman mistake." What do you think the students in our nursing program would do if their instructors decided to make their clinical mistakes public domain?
I've seen it for the last 15+ years at the corporate level from time to time....where people have been literally dressed down in front of MANY people because of mistakes. It makes your skin crawl at times, and you feel badly for the person, but I've been a witness to it. Often it ends up at HR, but more often or not the person doing the dressing down is very high up on the food chain and life goes on.
-
My guess is that MU has good lawyers on retainer.
This case won't be free... but they wouldn't have dismissed McAdams unless they were sure about their case.
I believe Marquette is a client of Whyte Hirschboek, although they may bring in some type of specialty firm for this case.
-
Come on, the real reason he's getting canned is because this is MU's opportunity to get rid of someone who has persistently criticized the university at every chance he has had for YEARS. The 'gay marriage' issue is a red herring. If MU didn't have to prop up pretext to get around the asinine existence of tenure he'd have been gone long long ago.
Think of it this way, could any one of you criticize your employer with impunity like McAdams did for as long as he did and still have a job? If your answer is yes, then you're lucky enough to have the protection of the archaic tenure system.
Yup
-
I also had Dr. McAdams as a prof, enjoyed his classes very much. Hate to see this go to litigation, but seems inevitable which will be bad for MU to some extent.
+1
-
I've seen it for the last 15+ years at the corporate level from time to time....where people have been literally dressed down in front of MANY people because of mistakes. It makes your skin crawl at times, and you feel badly for the person, but I've been a witness to it. Often it ends up at HR, but more often or not the person doing the dressing down is very high up on the food chain and life goes on.
But in your example, isn't the person doing the dressing down almost always in that person's reporting line?
How often does someone in Programming get away with publicly dressing down someone in Accounting?
-
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has picked up the story
http://www.thefire.org/gay-marriage-flap-marquette-moves-fire-tenured-prof/
“If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley.
-
There is no time stamp on stupidity. Marquette has a knack for making itself look naive, obtuse, and ludicrous. Isn't that the recipe for irrelevance?
http://chronicle.com/article/Rejected-by-Marquette-Nonc/65481/
-
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has picked up the story
http://www.thefire.org/gay-marriage-flap-marquette-moves-fire-tenured-prof/
“If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley.
FIRE does a lot of good things.
-
He didn't decide. She is the one who decides how to respond to criticism from another academic.
So, if you have an intern who makes a mistake, you would have no qualms about "ripping her a new one" for anyone in the entire world to see. Rather than call her into your office and setting things straight, would you feel the need to do it publicly?
-
So, if you have an intern who makes a mistake, you would have no qualms about "ripping her a new one" for anyone in the entire world to see. Rather than call her into your office and setting things straight, would you feel the need to do it publicly?
Just because doing so might be bad management, mentorship, leadership, or generally dic*ish behavior doesn't necessarily mean it should be grounds for dismissal.
-
Lovell is out here to speak to Marquette alums in West Hollywood a week from today. I wasn't going to go, but will now.
Ask him why he wears bangs.
-
FIRE does a lot of good things.
Agreed. I highly recommend their Youtube page. It is eye opening about the abuse of power in academia.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFIREorg/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFIREorg/videos)
-
Despite the fact that many here insist this has nothing to do with politics it has everything to do with politics. If Ms. Abbate denied a student the right to express pro gay marriage views in class because she considered those views anti catholic and offensive to traditional catholics in her class the people screaming the loudest against McAdams would be hailing the courageous liberal (be it her department chair or a random faculty blogger) who came down on her hard and in public.
With maybe a handful of exceptions, this is politics informing people's principles - not the other way around.
-
Despite the fact that many here insist this has nothing to do with politics it has everything to do with politics. If Ms. Abbate denied a student the right to express pro gay marriage views in class because she considered those views anti catholic and offensive to traditional catholics in her class the people screaming the loudest against McAdams would be hailing the courageous liberal (be it her department chair or a random faculty blogger) who came down on her hard and in public.
With maybe a handful of exceptions, this is politics informing people's principles - not the other way around.
Yes and no.
As far as gut reaction and "outrage" (shakes fist), you're probably right.
But, as far as MU's actions, and his ultimate dismissal, I think it's really a case of a really unprofessional move by McAdams.
He took things he heard second hand, and critiqued a TA. He didn't talk to her first. He didn't take it to the department head. He didn't critique another professor's published work. He received a student account of a classroom situation, and he ran to his keyboard.
This isn't a case of academic freedom.
He heard about something he didn't like and used it for blog fodder. Again, is this really how we want professors acting?
Its likely not the first issue McAdams has had, and thus, MU feels it has compiled enough documentation to release him.
-
If Marquette does indeed lose a wrongful termination suit (I hope McAdams does not settle), he would be entitled to damages. I believe that means his legal fees would also be covered by the university.
I don't know if MU will win or lose. I can't pretend that I do.
BUT, MU is likely taking carefully calculated steps. If they didn't feel they had a REALLY good chance of winning, I don't think they would have dismissed him.
OF COURSE he's going to sue. He has nothing to lose.
MU has a lot to lose, so I'm guessing they've done their homework.
-
Yes and no.
As far as gut reaction and "outrage" (shakes fist), you're probably right.
But, as far as MU's actions, and his ultimate dismissal, I think it's really a case of a really unprofessional move by McAdams.
He took things he heard second hand, and critiqued a TA. He didn't talk to her first. He didn't take it to the department head. He didn't critique another professor's published work. He received a student account of a classroom situation, and he ran to his keyboard.
This isn't a case of academic freedom.
He heard about something he didn't like and used it for blog fodder. Again, is this really how we want professors acting?
Its likely not the first issue McAdams has had, and thus, MU feels it has compiled enough documentation to release him.
I don't think you have a correct understanding of the facts.
-
I don't know if MU will win or lose. I can't pretend that I do.
BUT, MU is likely taking carefully calculated steps. If they didn't feel they had a REALLY good chance of winning, I don't think they would have dismissed him.
OF COURSE he's going to sue. He has nothing to lose.
MU has a lot to lose, so I'm guessing they've done their homework.
Doing your homework is not enough. Unexpected things come up all the time in litigation: a witness stumbles and says something stupid, a bad document is uncovered during discovery, a jury goes off the reservation, etc.
Marquette could have avoided all of this risk at little to no cost to its core principles. My guess is that the administration is just pissed off at McAdams and ignored the advice of its counsel to try and show the world that we aren't the gay-bashing institution that we came across as during the Dean fiasco a couple years ago.
-
Doing your homework is not enough. Unexpected things come up all the time in litigation: a witness stumbles and says something stupid, a bad document is uncovered during discovery, a jury goes off the reservation, etc.
Marquette could have avoided all of this risk at little to no cost to its core principles. My guess is that the administration is just pissed off at McAdams and ignored the advice of its counsel to try and show the world that we aren't the gay-bashing institution that we came across as during the Dean fiasco a couple years ago.
Could be, but hopefully not.
-
Doing your homework is not enough. Unexpected things come up all the time in litigation: a witness stumbles and says something stupid, a bad document is uncovered during discovery, a jury goes off the reservation, etc.
Marquette could have avoided all of this risk at little to no cost to its core principles. My guess is that the administration is just pissed off at McAdams and ignored the advice of its counsel to try and show the world that we aren't the gay-bashing institution that we came across as during the Dean fiasco a couple years ago.
Doubtful and here's why. There has been so much turnover since then. New president, a lot of new administration members. Lovell isn't Pilarz (thank God) and he's not Wild. Let him handle his university his way. I personally think it's a welcome change for MU.
-
Let's just say mu has 60-65% support. That might be high and giving them the benefit of the doubt, but, I'm sure all of you can do the math-is that really winning? They are alienating upwards of 30% or very possibly more of not just their alumni, followers, etc., but of all of those who are paying attention from God knows how far out. This is a really tough spot for dr. Lovell to come in to. I guess, things can only get better? Hmmmm
-
I guess, things can only get better? Hmmmm
With McAdams done, it is all immediately better.
-
With McAdams done, it is all immediately better.
Zing.
-
Yes and no.
As far as gut reaction and "outrage" (shakes fist), you're probably right.
But, as far as MU's actions, and his ultimate dismissal, I think it's really a case of a really unprofessional move by McAdams.
He took things he heard second hand, and critiqued a TA. He didn't talk to her first. He didn't take it to the department head. He didn't critique another professor's published work. He received a student account of a classroom situation, and he ran to his keyboard.
This isn't a case of academic freedom.
He heard about something he didn't like and used it for blog fodder. Again, is this really how we want professors acting?
Your emphasis is that this is something he only heard about second hand from a student. Wasn't there a tape of the student and T.A.'s conversation? Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly.
-
This isn't an academic freedom issue.
There's nothing "academic" about publicly haranguing a grad student because you disagree with how she handled a class matter.
McAdams wasn't presenting a scholarly position, offering an educational theory, engaging in research or teaching, or even offering intellectual debate or discourse. Had he been doing any of those things, you might have a case for academic freedom.
But that's not what happened here. He simply used the platform of his blog to levy a fairly personal attack against a student, as well as to re-hash longstanding grudges with university administrators.
Nothing remotely academic occurred here.
-
Your emphasis is that this is something he only heard about second hand from a student. Wasn't there a tape of the student and T.A.'s conversation? Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly.
That's correct, Lenny. The student voice recorded his conversation with the instructor. There is no argument about what she said.
-
Your emphasis is that this is something he only heard about second hand from a student. Wasn't there a tape of the student and T.A.'s conversation? Maybe I'm not remembering things correctly.
Yes, and I'm not trying to be obstinate, but the tape could have been anybody. McAdams didn't know if it was accurate. What if it wasn't? Then what? He would have critiqued a TA for nothing.
So, we have a senior level professor publicly critiquing a TA based upon one student account and an unverified recording. In retrospect, we know the recording is legit, but still, you get where I'm going.
Instead of giving the TA in question a reasonable time to respond, or even just walking to her office/class and talking to her, McAdams went ahead and published his very public blog.
-
That's correct, Lenny. The student voice recorded his conversation with the instructor. There is no argument about what she said.
Yes, but think about it, at the time, McAdams didn't know that.
He was all-too-willing to jump up on the soapbox without actually talking to the TA to confirm the facts.
It's not a good precedent to set for other staff members.
-
Yes, and I'm not trying to be obstinate, but the tape could have been anybody. McAdams didn't know if it was accurate. What if it wasn't? Then what? He would have critiqued a TA for nothing.
So, we have a senior level professor publicly critiquing a TA based upon one student account and an unverified recording. In retrospect, we know the recording is legit, but still, you get where I'm going.
Instead of giving the TA in question a reasonable time to respond, or even just walking to her office/class and talking to her, McAdams went ahead and published his very public blog.
The real issue is how our alma mater chose to handle this whole situation. Frankly, it is wanting. Sadly, once again.
-
The real issue is how our alma mater chose to handle this whole situation. Frankly, it is wanting. Sadly, once again.
What do you propose? (Im asking honesty, not sarcastically)
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
-
With McAdams done, it is all immediately better.
From the outside, looking in-you seem to be good, but I wouldn't be doing the happy dance just yet. There's a lot of heavy lifting to do here
-
The real issue is how our alma mater chose to handle this whole situation. Frankly, it is wanting. Sadly, once again.
I respect you Keefe, but I disagree. This was handled as well as it could have been. It has angered some folks, but that rests squarely on McAdams for trying to turn people against his employer for the last 20 years.
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
Yessss-thank you for that observation as I believe I also noted earlier
-
I respect you Keefe, but I disagree. This was handled as well as it could have been. It has angered some folks, but that rests squarely on McAdams for trying to turn people against his employer for the last 20 years.
Please explain what purpose firing McAdams, as opposed to simply issuing a public reprimand, serves.
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
I do disagree with McAdams, but it's solely with his anti-Marquette stuff.
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
It's personal and political. Not that Dr. McAdams didn't provide the firing squad with ammunition, but many on that squad had volunteered for duty long ago in hopes of getting a chance to "serve".
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
Never met the guy, had him for a class, knew his politics or even read his blog until all this blew up a couple of months back. Seems like a bit of a blowhard, but don't we all on the Internet? Also seems like a bully.
No idea whether I'd like him or not in real life.
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
I never had McAdams and had actually never heard of him until this incident. I was completely on his side of the boat about allowing the conversation to happen and was on his side of things until I read that he publicly blasted the TA on his blog. Then my take on this changed dramatically.
-
Never met the guy, had him for a class, knew his politics or even read his blog until all this blew up a couple of months back. Seems like a bit of a blowhard, but don't we all on the Internet? Also seems like a bully.
No idea whether I'd like him or not in real life.
Thanks Pakuni. Never heard of him at all until brought up on Scoop a few month sago. I just keep thinking the same exact thing.
The only opinion I keep coming to after 8 pages of thread and counting is that he sounds like a real Douchey Doucherson and simply acted like one, just one too many times and MU Administration whether right or wrong reached a breaking point and the decision had nothing to do with politics at all (and as usual everyone wants to inject in).
If he is a prestigious professor in academia then there should be many institutions waiting to scoop him up. (Pun there!)
Maybe he go to Liberty University with Dawson?
-
As I read this thread, I pick up personal dislike of Dr. McAdams. Perhaps this has nothing to do with right or wrong.
Maybe it has to do with getting rid of someone many of you disagree with.
I find his transformation somewhat odd. Admittedly, I studied under him 35 years ago and times change. His lectures were fascinating, he aired all sides in a discussion, and at the time I actually believed him to be an old school (Kennedy/Truman) democrat.
I don't know if I've told this story here before but I had a final with McAdams the morning after John Lennon was shot. He decided it was worthy of extended discussion so we did that as a class for about 20 minutes and he told us to write 4 out of 5 essays (our choice) given the time constraints.
-
I'll say one more thing. To see people on Facebook saying the same things about the TA that McAdams did is truly upsetting. I have never been more upset aND disgusted at the Marquette community for attacking this TA and making this a political issue which is not. It seriously makes me want to pack my bags and leave MU. Absolutely disgusting haven't hated the Marquette community this much since I almost transferred back in my freshman year. Signing off.
-
I'll say one more thing. To see people on Facebook saying the same things about the TA that McAdams did is truly upsetting. I have never been more upset aND disgusted at the Marquette community for attacking this TA and making this a political issue which is not. It seriously makes me want to pack my bags and leave MU. Absolutely disgusting haven't hated the Marquette community this much since I almost transferred back in my freshman year. Signing off.
Wow, that's a pretty strong take.
-
I take it you were never in Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT.) Public humiliation is an effective motivator. There is a reason the washout rate for UPT exceeds 60%. Not everybody has the right stuff to be given the keys to an F16 Viper.
Maybe Cheryl Abbate should never be given responsibility over students. Her behavior as regards academic freedom and intellectual integrity was found wanting.
The problem with this is that academia isn't the Air Force, nor should it aspire to be. They are different organizations with different goals and objectives.
-
To this day, people in Seattle associate Marquette University with Jodi O'Brien. But neither shrillness nor duration of public discourse should be the gauge or barometer of the inherent stupidity or unfairness of a bad decision. Marquette shamed itself on the national stage with Jodi O'Brien. The McAdams situation reinforces that reputation for profound imprudence and ineptitude.
Even if the bolded is true....who cares? How has their negative impression of Marquette affected the University in any significant manner?
Marquette has faced no significant PR backlash from the O'Brien matter. It will not face any in this matter either. (That doesn't mean I agree with either of the decisions.)
-
Damn right it is.
Academic freedom is ok....as long as you are talking about what they want you to talk about. The double standards continue.
Oh God.
Chicos is going to ignore facts and nail himself to his cross of conservative victimhood once again.
I would have thought he would have run out of nails by now.
-
There seems to be two groups on this board.
1. McAdams was sooooo mean for going after another teacher on his personal blog. A professor challenged my beliefs once and I am now damaged for life. I am outraged about this incident. Good riddance to Mcadams!
2. Marquette used a dishonest and dangerous method to cut ties with McAdams. I am curious about the details of the matter and would like to know more. I think Dr. Lovell and Dr. Holz should be held accountable for the actions taken by the university.
-
I'll say one more thing. To see people on Facebook saying the same things about the TA that McAdams did is truly upsetting. I have never been more upset aND disgusted at the Marquette community for attacking this TA and making this a political issue which is not. It seriously makes me want to pack my bags and leave MU. Absolutely disgusting haven't hated the Marquette community this much since I almost transferred back in my freshman year. Signing off.
are you sure the comments directed at cheryl were from the mu community? just wondering
-
There seems to be two groups on this board.
Nope, you forgot a VERY large group 3....
3. Don't give a crap either way
-
There seems to be two groups on this board.
1. McAdams was sooooo mean for going after another teacher on his personal blog. A professor challenged my beliefs once and I am now damaged for life. I am outraged about this incident. Good riddance to Mcadams!
2. Marquette used a dishonest and dangerous method to cut ties with McAdams. I am curious about the details of the matter and would like to know more. I think Dr. Lovell and Dr. Holz should be held accountable for the actions taken by the university.
(http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/straw-man.jpg)
-
I'll say one more thing. To see people on Facebook saying the same things about the TA that McAdams did is truly upsetting. I have never been more upset aND disgusted at the Marquette community for attacking this TA and making this a political issue which is not. It seriously makes me want to pack my bags and leave MU. Absolutely disgusting haven't hated the Marquette community this much since I almost transferred back in my freshman year. Signing off.
I posted that I was annoyed with how many people were politicizing this and not taking it at what it simply is. One guy commented that the TA never deserved to be at MU in the first place it's unreal it makes me disgusted
-
There seems to be two groups on this board.
1. McAdams was sooooo mean for going after another teacher on his personal blog. A professor challenged my beliefs once and I am now damaged for life. I am outraged about this incident. Good riddance to Mcadams!
2. Marquette used a dishonest and dangerous method to cut ties with McAdams. I am curious about the details of the matter and would like to know more. I think Dr. Lovell and Dr. Holz should be held accountable for the actions taken by the university.
She was not a teacher. If it was a colleague, it would be different, this was a student. McAdams never challenged her beliefs, he attacked her, when he was supposed to be in a position of mentoring.
Many like myself, do not think the TA handled things correctly. Many TAs make mistakes, even many faculty make mistakes, it is the faculty's job to take them aside and help them. He instead attacked her personally and professionally. Such complete disregard for his job as a professor and the student/faculty relationship is a fireable offense.
Many like myself do not care as to the background of the event. It is McAdams actions alone that are being judged here.
-
She was not a teacher. If it was a colleague, it would be different, this was a student. McAdams never challenged her beliefs, he attacked her, when he was supposed to be in a position of mentoring.
Many like myself, do not think the TA handled things correctly. Many TAs make mistakes, even many faculty make mistakes, it is the faculty's job to take them aside and help them. He instead attacked her personally and professionally. Such complete disregard for his job as a professor and the student/faculty relationship is a fireable offense.
Many like myself do not care as to the background of the event. It is McAdams actions alone that are being judged here.
Abbate was acting as a faculty member. Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view.
-
Abbate was acting as a faculty member. Marquette places graduate students in the position of instructors and gives them control over a classroom. McAdams’ conduct does not violate any Faculty Statute or other university requirement. Nothing in the statutes or any other university policy prohibits a faculty member from publicly disagreeing with a graduate student, much less someone who has been given sole responsibility for a course and authority over every student enrolled in it. Having accepted that authority and responsibility, the instructor in question chose to express her view on what can and cannot be permitted in academic discourse. In fact she relied on her authority as a “professor of ethics” in order to do so. That was her right. But Dr. McAdams is free to offer his differing view.
You know you're just making stuff up here, right?
Abbate was not a faculty member nor was she acting as one. Doesn't matter how many times you state it, it's just not true. She was acting as a graduate student assigned to teach a class.
Also, from the Marquette University employee handbook:
Violations of accepted policy and practice include, but are not limited to:
4. Behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a fellow employee, supervisor, student or any other member of the Marquette community.
-
You know you're just making stuff up here, right?
Abbate was not a faculty member nor was she acting as one. Doesn't matter how many times you state it, it's just not true. She was acting as a graduate student assigned to teach a class.
Also, from the Marquette University employee handbook:
Violations of accepted policy and practice include, but are not limited to:
4. Behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a fellow employee, supervisor, student or any other member of the Marquette community.
As McAdams blogged, an anonymous MU colleague stated, "[D]id Ms. Abbate have full authority of a faculty member to lecture, assign readings, moderate class discussion, assign and grade papers, write and grade tests, and assign final grades? If so, why would a graduate student instructor be insulated from all criticism for anything they may do as an instructor with full faculty authority? Yes, the graduate student instructor is a student, but if they are given full faculty authority, then they should be open to criticism of their conduct as a faculty instructor. In short, I don’t think the university can have it both ways."
MU's harassment policy is also broad, "Harassment is defined as verbal, written or physical conduct directed at a person or a group based on color, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, veteran status, age, gender or sexual orientation where the offensive behavior is intimidating, hostile or demeaning or could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm."
Ridiculous.
-
Nope, you forgot a VERY large group 3....
3. Don't give a crap either way
This one for sure.
As a matter fact Marquette coincidentally just called for the annual donation and I gave.
-
As McAdams blogged, an anonymous MU colleague stated, "[D]id Ms. Abbate have full authority of a faculty member to lecture, assign readings, moderate class discussion, assign and grade papers, write and grade tests, and assign final grades? If so, why would a graduate student instructor be insulated from all criticism for anything they may do as an instructor with full faculty authority? Yes, the graduate student instructor is a student, but if they are given full faculty authority, then they should be open to criticism of their conduct as a faculty instructor. In short, I don’t think the university can have it both ways."
MU's harassment policy is also broad, "Harassment is defined as verbal, written or physical conduct directed at a person or a group based on color, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, veteran status, age, gender or sexual orientation where the offensive behavior is intimidating, hostile or demeaning or could or does result in mental, emotional or physical discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule or harm."
Ridiculous.
You really need to understand the difference between criticism and verbal abuse and threats. BIG difference.
-
You really need to understand the difference between criticism and verbal abuse and threats. BIG difference.
Since you brought it up, state the alleged verbal abuse and threats that MacAdams used.
-
As McAdams blogged, an anonymous MU colleague stated, "[D]id Ms. Abbate have full authority of a faculty member to lecture, assign readings, moderate class discussion, assign and grade papers, write and grade tests, and assign final grades? If so, why would a graduate student instructor be insulated from all criticism for anything they may do as an instructor with full faculty authority? Yes, the graduate student instructor is a student, but if they are given full faculty authority, then they should be open to criticism of their conduct as a faculty instructor. In short, I don’t think the university can have it both ways."
Because they *aren't* faculty members! Just because they act *like* a faculty member when they teach a course, that doesn't make them such.
That's not having it both ways. That's simply an accurate description of who they are.
I agree with the basic premise that he shouldn't have been fired, at least knowing what has been released publicly, but you are splitting hairs here.
-
Sultan is likely spot on, here, although a lawsuit is a wildcard.
McAdams was a cancer on MU, and the chemotherapy will not be pretty, but in the end, the patient will be just fine.
+1000. Dude was a cancer. I'd love to see somebody dig up everything anti-MU he has posted. When you're a corporation, if one of your own is continually biting the hand that feeds it, they shouldn't be surprised when the corporation gets rid of them. He destroyed a students life...was she wrong, IMO absolutely. But there's a way to handle things professionally and appropriately.
-
Since you brought it up, state the alleged verbal abuse and threats that MacAdams used.
+1
-
+1000. Dude was a cancer. I'd love to see somebody dig up everything anti-MU he has posted. When you're a corporation, if one of your own is continually biting the hand that feeds it, they shouldn't be surprised when the corporation gets rid of them. He destroyed a students life...was she wrong, IMO absolutely. But there's a way to handle things professionally and appropriately.
Seriously? MU is a teaching institution, not a corporation. Universities are supposed to invite debate and discourse of opposing ideas. If we tried to look for all the negative things said publicly by univ. Employed people and then fired them...whoa whoa
-
+1000. Dude was a cancer. I'd love to see somebody dig up everything anti-MU he has posted. When you're a corporation, if one of your own is continually biting the hand that feeds it, they shouldn't be surprised when the corporation gets rid of them. He destroyed a students life...was she wrong, IMO absolutely. But there's a way to handle things professionally and appropriately.
A students life was destroyed? What does that even mean?
-
I found this post from a decade ago to be intriguing:
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/11/marquette-and-heretical-dan-maguire.html
-
Tenure needs to be abolished regardless of this individual case.
He'll probably get a nice little retirement package out of this.
-
I found this post from a decade ago to be intriguing:
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/11/marquette-and-heretical-dan-maguire.html
So either...
1. Marquette changed its policy regarding academic freedom.
or
2. This isn't about academic freedom.
My guess is that #2 is the correct answer.
-
Tenure needs to be abolished regardless of this individual case.
Why?
-
I respect you Keefe, but I disagree. This was handled as well as it could have been. It has angered some folks, but that rests squarely on McAdams for trying to turn people against his employer for the last 20 years.
Something MU hasn't really needed his help with. They have done a fine job on their own.
-
F uck Marquette. This is shameful and embarassing
Amen Keefe, amen about this whole situation and how MU has responded.
-
He destroyed a students life...
Good grief.
-
Threats, verbal abuse, a life destroyed? Is Drama now the preferred major at Marquette? Has Caleo ergo sum replaced Cogito ergo sum?
-
So either...
1. Marquette changed its policy regarding academic freedom.
or
2. This isn't about academic freedom.
My guess is that #2 is the correct answer.
How can you possible argue that this situation isn't about academic freedom? Even Marquette isn't denying that it is involved here...
-
Amen Keefe, amen about this whole situation and how MU has responded.
My wife and I both graduated from MU, and have Sophomore daughter beginning to think about college. This is just one more reason neither one of us is really encouraging her to consider Marquette. Just not the same place we went. I know it's symptomatic of higher Ed in general and there probably all about the same, but it's just very disappointing.
-
Professors should be graded out on their effectiveness in the classroom yearly based on scores similar to all "lower level" teachers. 'Are they effective?' is never asked after tenure. No accountability leads to sloppiness and turning the soul of their job to assistants.
-
My wife and I both graduated from MU, and have Sophomore daughter beginning to think about college. This is just one more reason neither one of of is really encouraging her to consider Marquette. Just not the same place we went. I know it's just symptematic of higher Ed in general and there probably all about the same, but it's just very disappointing.
That's exactly it, MU's response from the top, and how they've handled/bungled it, is hardly unique given the culture at the top that is pervasive at today's colleges around the country.
-
A students life was destroyed? What does that even mean?
If you were well onto your final career choice as a phD student at a university you loved, and were well entrenched in the community socially and careerwise and this came to a screeching halt because of some douche bag , would you be upset? Would you like to receive dozens of death threats and have your reputation tarnished because of a mistake you made as a student? How many times has this board talked about how stupid we all were as students from being immature and naive? She made a mistake and didn't deserve the public flogging that she took because of somebody's political agenda. How would you like to have to unexpectedly transfer your last year at Marquette and leave behind everything you knew because someone ruined your reputation? Forget about the fact that you were publicly degraded despite people not hearing the entire audio tape. lets just say the student who unknowingly audiotaped Her was not acting in an appropriate manner and if the tape wasn't so conveniently edited, you might feel different. If this was my daughter I'd personally go after McAdams
-
How can you possible argue that this situation isn't about academic freedom? Even Marquette isn't denying that it is involved here...
Uh...no. Here is part of their statement:
"The decisions here have everything to do with our Guiding Values and expectations of conduct toward each other and nothing to do with academic freedom..."
-
That's exactly it, MU's response from the top, and how they've handled/bungled it, is hardly unique given the culture at the top that is pervasive at today's colleges around the country.
LOL...OK...
Just last week we were praising Lovell and the new building they announced in association with the Bucks. Now you and Navin are bitching about....I don't know what really...and then saying it is symptomatic of poor leadership.
Well, whatever.
-
How can you possible argue that this situation isn't about academic freedom? Even Marquette isn't denying that it is involved here...
Could you fill us in the academic purpose/goal/end McAdams was pursuing when he took to his blog to lambaste a grad student? Is publicly criticizing students an integral part of the poly sci field these days?
Was he conducting research or teaching? Was he engaging on scholarly discourse?
No and no.
He was attacking a grad student over a minor infraction on her part and rehashing long-held grudges with the administration.
This isn't about academic freedom because there was absolutely nothing academic about McAdams' actions or his intents.
-
Uh...no. Here is part of their statement:
"The decisions here have everything to do with our Guiding Values and expectations of conduct toward each other and nothing to do with academic freedom..."
Okay. I was wrong. MU is full of it.
Just so you are aware, the rest of academia disagrees with your and Marquette's view of "academic freedom": http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
-
Could you fill us in the academic purpose/goal/end McAdams was pursuing when he took to his blog to lambaste a grad student? Is publicly criticizing students an integral part of the poly sci field these days?
Was he conducting research or teaching? Was he engaging on scholarly discourse?
No and no.
He was attacking a grad student over a minor infraction on her part and rehashing long-held grudges with the administration.
This isn't about academic freedom because there was absolutely nothing academic about McAdams' actions or his intents.
Sure can. McAdams was publicly expressing his opinions about a Marquette instructors handling of a student's concerns about classroom discussion. That is scholarly discourse. It doesn't get more academic than discussing the status of freedom of expression and debate in a college classroom.
-
LOL...OK...
Just last week we were praising Lovell and the new building they announced in association with the Bucks. Now you and Navin are bitching about....I don't know what really...and then saying it is symptomatic of poor leadership.
Well, whatever.
Whatever is right, but I appreciate the words in my mouth.
If anyone wants to try and deny that MU has done a helluva job allientating a helluva lot of people the past several years, be my guest. You'd be a fool, but be my guest.
Times change. I get it. Don't have to like it, but a I get it. Once upon a time one could distinguish MU from the likes of UW-Madison from a cultural values or ideological standpoint. I'm just not sure that's the case anymore, and I think that's sad. Like I said, not unique to MU, but as a parent preparing to send a kid off to college, it sure would be nice if they weren't all the same.
-
Could you fill us in the academic purpose/goal/end McAdams was pursuing when he took to his blog to lambaste a grad student? Is publicly criticizing students an integral part of the poly sci field these days?
Was he conducting research or teaching? Was he engaging on scholarly discourse?
No and no.
He was attacking a grad student over a minor infraction on her part and rehashing long-held grudges with the administration.
This isn't about academic freedom because there was absolutely nothing academic about McAdams' actions or his intents.
Just so we are all clear, this is the most "attacking" portion of McAdams' original post:
"Abbate, of course, was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed 'offensive' and need to be shut up."
-
Okay. I was wrong. MU is full of it.
Just so you are aware, the rest of academia disagrees with your and Marquette's view of "academic freedom": http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
Of course they do. In the grand tradition of a union, that is what they do whenever a professor is let go.
And I have said that I would not have fired him. But the idea that he shouldn't even have been reprimanded is beyond silly. As Pakuni said, this is not an academic issue.
-
If anyone wants to try and deny that MU has done a helluva job allientating a helluva lot of people the past several years, be my guest. You'd be a fool, but be my guest.
I don't disagree with this at all. I would be in the same boat in a number of respects. Outside of following the basketball program, I don't have much more than a passing interest in the school.
Times change. I get it. Don't have to like it, but a I get it. Once upon a time one could distinguish MU from the likes of UW-Madison from a cultural values or ideological standpoint. I'm just not sure that's the case anymore, and I think that's sad. Like I said, not unique to MU, but as a parent preparing to send a kid off to college, it sure would be nice if they weren't all the same.
I don't think they are, and I am struggling to understand why you think so.
-
I don't think they are, and I am struggling to understand why you think so.
I should probably rephrase. They aren't all the same, but they're getting there. The gap gets smaller and smaller every day.
As for Marquette, I guess the point is,mi have seen little or nothing in the last decade+ that makes me think, "that is a place I'd really like to see my kids go to college." Now, they may end up going there, but not vp because my wife and I are encouraging it.
-
Could you fill us in the academic purpose/goal/end McAdams was pursuing when he took to his blog to lambaste a grad student? Is publicly criticizing students an integral part of the poly sci field these days?
Was he conducting research or teaching? Was he engaging on scholarly discourse?
No and no.
He was attacking a grad student over a minor infraction on her part and rehashing long-held grudges with the administration.
This isn't about academic freedom because there was absolutely nothing academic about McAdams' actions or his intents.
Define attacking. What exactly did McAdams do to "attack" the grad student?
-
Of course they do. In the grand tradition of a union, that is what they do whenever a professor is let go.
And I have said that I would not have fired him. But the idea that he shouldn't even have been reprimanded is beyond silly. As Pakuni said, this is not an academic issue.
I agree with you: MU would have been well within its rights to publicly reprimand McAdams. But trying to say you support academic freedom while firing a professor for advocating for the open discussion of issues of legitimate public debate is beyond hypocritical.
-
Someone clear this up for me. From accounts that I have heard, the issue of gay marriage was discussed in class the next time they met. If that's the case, how can anyone say she was suppressing academic freedom? Is she not entitled to determine when issues can be discussed? If that's not the case, forgive me, and carry on.
-
Define attacking. What exactly did McAdams do to "attack" the grad student?
That's the thing that irks me. He didn't "attack," he criticized.
Now, if you want to blame him for putting the piece out there, thus causing keyboard warriors to attack Abbate, then sure. But there is a difference.
-
But in your example, isn't the person doing the dressing down almost always in that person's reporting line?
How often does someone in Programming get away with publicly dressing down someone in Accounting?
Correct, almost always. Thing is, however, some of these guys might have 5,000 employees under them.
Even said, I've seen Exec VP types blast people in other departments on the premise that their actions hurt his ability for his department to do theirs.
-
Oh God.
Chicos is going to ignore facts and nail himself to his cross of conservative victimhood once again.
I would have thought he would have run out of nails by now.
Your contribution is stellar
-
I posted that I was annoyed with how many people were politicizing this and not taking it at what it simply is. One guy commented that the TA never deserved to be at MU in the first place it's unreal it makes me disgusted
Maybe people feel you are naive to think it isn't political. It reeks of it. If one reads Holt's own words in the complaint, it is hard for me to come away with the idea it didn't play a role.
-
You know you're just making stuff up here, right?
Abbate was not a faculty member nor was she acting as one. Doesn't matter how many times you state it, it's just not true. She was acting as a graduate student assigned to teach a class.
Also, from the Marquette University employee handbook:
Violations of accepted policy and practice include, but are not limited to:
4. Behaving in an overtly discourteous, abusive or disrespectful manner toward a fellow employee, supervisor, student or any other member of the Marquette community.
Is she listed anywhere by MU as a member of the faculty listing? Including TA list of faculty? If so, then I think your argument that she is not an acting member of the faculty as an instructor is out the door.
-
+1000. Dude was a cancer. I'd love to see somebody dig up everything anti-MU he has posted. When you're a corporation, if one of your own is continually biting the hand that feeds it, they shouldn't be surprised when the corporation gets rid of them. He destroyed a students life...was she wrong, IMO absolutely. But there's a way to handle things professionally and appropriately.
Destroyed her life? Did he kill her?
hyperbole.
Comparing to a corporation where tenure doesn't exist or the "safety" to say such things? Poor comparison.
-
Nm, peace scoop.
-
Maybe people feel you are naive to think it isn't political. It reeks of it. If one reads Holt's own words in the complaint, it is hard for me to come away with the idea it didn't play a role.
Well call me naive if you'd like, it's no secret I think you're a pompous a$$.
-
After reading this thread and Facebook posts from people at MU I'm absolutely done with this school. Forget it, I'm done with this board and can't wait until I get out of this hell hole in 3 months. Should have gone to Illinois or Northwestern.
How can you plausibly be that upset over a relatively mild manner discussion of a campus issue?
-
After reading this thread and Facebook posts from people at MU I'm absolutely done with this school. Forget it, I'm done with this board and can't wait until I get out of this hell hole in 3 months. Should have gone to Illinois or Northwestern.
Fun.
-
After reading this thread and Facebook posts from people at MU I'm absolutely done with this school. Forget it, I'm done with this board and can't wait until I get out of this hell hole in 3 months. Should have gone to Illinois or Northwestern.
So I assume that you'll leave MU off your resume, since you're so ashamed and all. You probably won't even accept that diploma if they begged you to take it either. Those are principles I can get on board with
-
On a side note, I just Google imaged McAdams. Haven't seen him since I took one of his classes about 15 years ago
He's the doppelgänger of Tiny Tim. Love it
-
Is she listed anywhere by MU as a member of the faculty listing? Including TA list of faculty? If so, then I think your argument that she is not an acting member of the faculty as an instructor is out the door.
TA's are not faculty according to MU or any other University. They are TAs, they do not get faculty benefits nor are they eligible as faculty for committees or the faculty senate.
TAs are instructors, often times acting as an instructor for course credit. I'm not sure about this case or at MU, but at most Universities they are not even allowed to officially enter grades, but only do so under the direction of an advisor.
-
Nm, peace scoop.
Bye bye. Maybe you should read up on Illinois and Northwestern and what some of their "alumni" write on Facebook. LOL.
-
Well call me naive if you'd like, it's no secret I think you're a pompous a$$.
Awwww.....so tolerant of you....again. LOL. It's why I love you the mostest.
-
The problem with this is that academia isn't the Air Force, nor should it aspire to be. They are different organizations with different goals and objectives.
I wasn't actually comparing the two worlds...it was in response to a statement about negative motivation. The USAF washes out more than 60% of every UPT class...it is a classic Darwinian model that ensures selective breeding for a bloody difficult job. Getting your wings is only the beginning of a long education in a world where the stakes are high and the margin for error is non-existent.
-
I wasn't actually comparing the two worlds...it was in response to a statement about negative motivation. The USAF washes out more than 60% of every UPT class...it is a classic Darwinian model that ensures selective breeding for a bloody difficult job. Getting your wings is only the beginning of a long education in a world where the stakes are high and the margin for error is non-existent.
While I think you and Chicos make valid points about negative motivation (I actually recall a similar situation in a freshman engineering seminar), you're not considering scale or duration. I think being disciplined in front of a few dozen members of your squadron doesn't have quite the same audience or longevity as Fox News broadcasting that you hate freedom to their entire viewership. You can argue that McAdams isn't responsible for the story getting picked up, but I'd argue he's not blogging just to make his mom proud. A political science professor who is ignorant of how the cable news cycle works is not a good political science professor. While McAdams may be an unprofessional employee, he is a good poly sci professor, so to say he didn't have an inclination as to how this would turn out is a load.
I still don't agree with you that this is the litmus test for handling pressure in academia. Is she a doctoral candidate or a presidential candidate?
-
I'll say one more thing. To see people on Facebook saying the same things about the TA that McAdams did is truly upsetting. I have never been more upset aND disgusted at the Marquette community for attacking this TA and making this a political issue which is not. It seriously makes me want to pack my bags and leave MU. Absolutely disgusting haven't hated the Marquette community this much since I almost transferred back in my freshman year. Signing off.
This seems reasonable and well thought out.
Might want to take a breather and rethink your reasoning tomorrow.
-
People stop me and ask-what's happening with your Marquette....now? I tell them, it's not my Marquette anymore, it's not the school I went to. Or the school my father went to or his father...ya see, when we all went, it was the WARRIORS! Today, if they were looking for a new name to replace "golden eagles" because the sierra club deemed it offensive, they would probably have "pink" or "red" as the front runners. Pretty sad when we're in competition with Bucky for the name "Moscow on the lake" >:(
-
Nm, peace scoop.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/df/dfaea0b12a26471c71fff91f56cb5840b004c06c894be771b824b149c3e0d140.jpg)
-
While I think you and Chicos make valid points about negative motivation (I actually recall a similar situation in a freshman engineering seminar), you're not considering scale or duration. I think being disciplined in front of a few dozen members of your squadron doesn't have quite the same audience or longevity as Fox News broadcasting that you hate freedom to their entire viewership. You can argue that McAdams isn't responsible for the story getting picked up, but I'd argue he's not blogging just to make his mom proud. A political science professor who is ignorant of how the cable news cycle works is not a good political science professor. While McAdams may be an unprofessional employee, he is a good poly sci professor, so to say he didn't have an inclination as to how this would turn out is a load.
I still don't agree with you that this is the litmus test for handling pressure in academia. Is she a doctoral candidate or a presidential candidate?
Do you think all professors should avoid ever blogging on their own time in the event it is picked up by someone, other than mom? Are you really suggesting that you thought McAdams did this knowing news cycles and that someone would care so deeply in the media that it would be picked up? I'm curious, how many of McAdams blog posts over the last 10 years have hit the news cycle?
-
While I think you and Chicos make valid points about negative motivation (I actually recall a similar situation in a freshman engineering seminar), you're not considering scale or duration.
I would also argue that receiving negative motivation in a setting where such tactics are to be expected is fine. These types of tactics are not to be expected in the faculty / student relationship.
-
Is she listed anywhere by MU as a member of the faculty listing? Including TA list of faculty? If so, then I think your argument that she is not an acting member of the faculty as an instructor is out the door.
She is NOT a faculty member. Just because she ACTS like a faculty member in that she teaches a class, doesn't MAKE her one.
-
I agree with you: MU would have been well within its rights to publicly reprimand McAdams. But trying to say you support academic freedom while firing a professor for advocating for the open discussion of issues of legitimate public debate is beyond hypocritical.
No, no, no...you misunderstand.
I think Abatte was wrong in how she handled the classroom situation. I think McAdams is right in that she handled it wrong.
The method upon which McAdams used to draw attention to the issue is where I have a problem. Calling out a student on a public blog was never the right way to do this.
-
Professors should be graded out on their effectiveness in the classroom yearly based on scores similar to all "lower level" teachers. 'Are they effective?' is never asked after tenure. No accountability leads to sloppiness and turning the soul of their job to assistants.
Tenure isn't about classroom evaluation, nor should it be.
-
Awwww.....so tolerant of you....again. LOL. It's why I love you the mostest.
Wait so you wanted me to be tolerant of you insulting me? Hmm interesting way of thinking there Chicos
-
The method upon which McAdams used to draw attention to the issue is where I have a problem. Calling out a student on a public blog was never the right way to do this.
Marquette is attempting to use that argument, except that it contradicts itself. As laid out in McAdams blog,
Holz continues:
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts.
This is simply untrue. Only once did any university official (Provost John Pauly) tell us not to make any blog posts about students. (Actually, he said it was fine to commend students, but we should not criticize student activities – essentially demanding biased journalism.)
We blogged about this, and made it clear to Pauly that he had no right to tell us what to blog about. This was in 2011, and we continued to blog about student activities. Pauly let us alone, which we interpreted as meaning that he knew he had no authority to censor our blog.
Holz cited another case, but mangled the details:
In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name.
In fact, if we recall correctly, it was a faculty member who contacted us, soon after the post went up (nobody in the Communications School or at the Tribune responded to our earlier inquiries). She convinced us that the student in question was not in fact responsible for the failure of the Tribune to run the ad (contrary to what we had been told by Wisconsin Right to Life), and we were happy to delete the student’s name.
But the issue was not “mentioning students’ names,” it was the actions of this particular student. Nobody told us we could “not mention student names” in this case.
Interestingly, this past fall, Holz explicitly told us that one of our posts that mentioned two students’ names was not an issue. We had been summoned to his office on the basis of a student complaint which he would not explain. (It turned out that the president of the Palestinian Student Association claimed to feel “intimidated” when we tried to interview him about “Israeli Apartheid Week” which his organization, and three offices at Marquette, sponsored.)
We asked Holz whether the meeting was about a post we had made regarding a meeting between Marquette officials and a student group who wanted to boycott Palermo’s Pizza. We sent him the link to the post. He replied that it was “not the issue.”
So a post where we named two student activists was not an “issue.” But then all of a sudden a post naming a student instructor becomes the issue when Marquette wants to get rid of a professor who causes controversy.
-
Well let me just say that I am not going to necessarily take McAdams at his word here. He has motivation to stretch the truth.
-
Sultan, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that you are some sort of college administrator, and as such have experience with things of this ilk.
-
She is NOT a faculty member. Just because she ACTS like a faculty member in that she teaches a class, doesn't MAKE her one.
I believe that's why I used ?'s to ask a question.
I would like to know if there are any materials printed online or published that list her as a faculty member in some fashion? I suspect his attorneys are all over that.
-
Wait so you wanted me to be tolerant of you insulting me? Hmm interesting way of thinking there Chicos
If you think that was insulting, you truly need a thicker skin......you delicate flower
-
Well let me just say that I am not going to necessarily take McAdams at his word here. He has motivation to stretch the truth.
Are you taking Lovell at his word? Doesn't he have the same motivation?
For the record, I am not taking either at face value. Again, to a cold hearted cynic like me, this is very simple...were the initial subject matter something other than gay marriage, let's say taxes, or social security, minimum wage...whatever, and everything went down the exact same way, this would never have bubbled up as it has. It's funny, because outside of the fringies on either side, I think the overwhelming majority of people don't give a rip about gay marriage.
-
So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop. When is the sky supposed to be falling over this? When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads? Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.
-
Professors should be graded out on their effectiveness in the classroom yearly based on scores similar to all "lower level" teachers. 'Are they effective?' is never asked after tenure. No accountability leads to sloppiness and turning the soul of their job to assistants.
I agree with this.
A blog post is not the place for it though.
-
If you think that was insulting, you truly need a thicker skin......you delicate flower
Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.
-
Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.
Yay Chicos vs Boxer fight!
-
I agree with you: MU would have been well within its rights to publicly reprimand McAdams.
So then you agree that he did something wrong?
Which means this isn't about academic freedom.
You just disagree with the punishment?
Its Ok to disagree with the punishment...Sultan has even said he doesn't agree with it, I'm not sure I agree with it completely, although in the end I respect Lovell's courage.
But then you are at least agreeing with us that McAdams was in the wrong here, and deserved some sort of reprimand. Maybe the punishment was too harsh, that's fine if you think that. But then stop making it about academic freedom. It is not about that. If it truly was a violation of McAdams' academic freedom, why would you think he is deserving of a reprimand?
-
Sultan, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that you are some sort of college administrator, and as such have experience with things of this ilk.
Yes. And that is why I can't really take McAdams at his complete word here. One side can discuss whatever they want in their personnel file. They can make things up. They can stretch the truth. I'm not saying he DID, just saying he CAN.
Marquette can't. They can't say if McAdams is lying. But it is my experience that Marquette would not go through this unless they felt that they had a solid case. Schools don't fire professors because of their political leanings. They don't fire professors simply because they are a pain in the ass. I mean, they never fired Maguire - and I don't think it's because Raynor and the BOT were a bunch of pansy-ass liberals. I mean, McAdams is vocal, but he is 70 years old and doesn't have a huge following. Even at the height of the Warrior nickname debate, he wasn't severely impacting the operations of the University in any way.
BUT perhaps Marquette doesn't have that solid of a case. If that happens, McAdams should sue and should win. My experience however is that Universities take great care to lay out personnel cases, especially in the case of tenured professors.
-
So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop. When is the sky supposed to be falling over this? When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads? Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.
Exactly. That is why I have been saying that from a PR perspective, this is nothing right now and will likely be nothing in the future.
-
Marquette can't. They can't say if McAdams is lying. But it is my experience that Marquette would not go through this unless they felt that they had a solid case. Schools don't fire professors because of their political leanings. They don't fire professors simply because they are a pain in the ass. I mean, they never fired Maguire - and I don't think it's because Raynor and the BOT were a bunch of pansy-ass liberals. I mean, McAdams is vocal, but he is 70 years old and doesn't have a huge following. Even at the height of the Warrior nickname debate, he wasn't severely impacting the operations of the University in any way.
BUT perhaps Marquette doesn't have that solid of a case. If that happens, McAdams should sue and should win. My experience however is that Universities take great care to lay out personnel cases, especially in the case of tenured professors.
Yep. Book it Dano.
-
So a bunch of higher ed nerds on insidehighered.com and @ the Chronicle are debating this, and us here @ the Scoop. When is the sky supposed to be falling over this? When can I expect the seas to turn to blood, and raining toads? Just want to put it in my Outlook calendar so I can be prepared.
Things like this don't necessarily have an immediate impact-ever hear of boiling the frog? It takes a long time to stop a rolling train. By the time one thinks the world is all good, the frog is cooked. Then what? But but but, our intentions weren't to....quick-cpr, turn down the heat, somebody do something, these are things that wise people think about before they act
Mccadams is merely providing a minority voice to campus's all over who are sick and tired of getting the beat down from the liberal majority. We're his methods questionable? Probably. Should he be fired over this? I don't believe so. Is Marquette doing this for"political" reasons? Absolutely! They are trying to hide that behind a veil of a bunch of legalese horse-hockey handbooks, rules, ethics, morals, blah blah blah-lets cut the crap and say it for what it is-they've wanted to get rid of this guy for some time-they believe they've found their crack in the door. As someone said earlier, what if this were over taxes or the Vietnam war, or....this is about gay marriage. One would think Marquette being the jesuit(I think) university it ascribes to be, would welcome an exchange of opinion in a controlled environment. Oh no? It's about a student? Yeah, nice-here's our chance-go get him. I think mu is getting some bad bad advice from attorneys who think like them. Well the same of course can be said about Johnny except he has the constitution behind him
-
So then you agree that he did something wrong?
Which means this isn't about academic freedom.
You just disagree with the punishment?
Its Ok to disagree with the punishment...Sultan has even said he doesn't agree with it, I'm not sure I agree with it completely, although in the end I respect Lovell's courage.
But then you are at least agreeing with us that McAdams was in the wrong here, and deserved some sort of reprimand. Maybe the punishment was too harsh, that's fine if you think that. But then stop making it about academic freedom. It is not about that. If it truly was a violation of McAdams' academic freedom, why would you think he is deserving of a reprimand?
I fail to see how supporting MU's right to disapprove of a professor's comments means the issue is not about academic freedom.
My view:
1) McAdams should be allowed to make his criticisms about campus matters in public.
2) Marquette should be allowed to publicly state that it disagrees with McAdams criticisms and the way he handled the issue. McAdams academic freedom doesn't insulate him from counter-speech, but it should insulate his from adverse employment action by the institution.
-
It's not about academic freedom.
If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.
If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.
What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.
He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.
He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.
I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).
-
Well call me naive if you'd like, it's no secret I think you're a pompous a$$.
The classic response of those who have nothing to offer.
-
It's not about academic freedom.
If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.
If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.
What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.
He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.
He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.
I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).
Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom? Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes? Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?
Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog. Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.
-
It's not about academic freedom.
If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.
If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.
What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.
He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.
He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.
I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).
This. Exactly this.
-
Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom? Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes? Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?
Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog. Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.
If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.
This has nothing to do with academic freedom.
-
Tenure isn't about classroom evaluation, nor should it be.
That's the effect of tenure whether or not that was it's reason for creation. It'd be nice to know they're doing their actual job of teaching competently and have repercussions available.
-
If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.
This has nothing to do with academic freedom.
So only certain kinds of speech qualify as "scholarly" and thus are protected?
Edited to add: I guess only newspaper writers are "journalists" too. Blogs are sorta a thing now, ya know?
-
Oh it didn't offend me just like me telling my honest opinion of you, explaining why it didn't offend me, shouldn't offend you. Doesn't have anything to do with tolerance you just wanted to drag that in be honest.
Bags - don't agree with your position, I think politics are surely involved here. That aside, I'll pay $500 to the charity of your choice for ringside seats if you can convince Clint Eastwood (er, Chico) to go three rounds with you. Don't be intimidated by his celebrity entourage (he almost never mentions it, but he runs with famous people, doncha' know) - your support from us little people at Scoop will drown them out.
-
So only certain kinds of speech qualify as "scholarly" and thus are protected?
Edited to add: I guess only newspaper writers are "journalists" too. Blogs are sorta a thing now, ya know?
Tenure does not imply you can say whatever the hell you want in whatever way you want to other people at Marquette and face no repercussions.
This is NOT about McAdams' views. Its about the manner in which he treated someone lower on the totem pole than him.
-
Someone explain to me how commenting about a student's experience with academic discourse within a college classroom is not scholarly discourse protected under academic freedom? Also please explain from where this "duty" to fact check comes? Also explain why the student's shady behavior in secretly taping the conversation impacts McAdams decision to run with the story? Please also explain why McAdams supposed motive to get blog hits is relevant to the exercise of his rights?
Listen, you can disagree with what McAdams did, think he is a sh*tty guy, call him all the names you want on your blog. Just don't try to pretend academic freedom isn't at issue.
As I've stated before, what if the student was straight up lying and McAdams posted his blog? Would that change anything for you?
So yes, I think McAdams has a responsibility to fact check his published critique. Otherwise, he's basically just posting and commenting on rumors he's heard around campus.
Cannot act like that, and then call it "academic discourse".
-
If you don't know the difference between a blog post and scholarly discourse, which is indeed fact-checked, peer reviewed, edited, and subjected to other scrutiny before being disseminated throughout the academic community, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
This wasn't scholarly discourse. It was a bully pulpit, conducted by someone in a position of authority with tenure on someone without equal privileges in the academic system.
This has nothing to do with academic freedom.
So lectures are not covered by academic freedom because they are not fact-checked, peer reviewed, and edited before being disseminated? You are just making stuff up to fit your preferred notions of justice in this case.
Again, please explain what words McAdams used that constituted bullying. Just calling something bullying or harassment doesn't make it so.
-
As I've stated before, what if the student was straight up lying and McAdams posted his blog? Would that change anything for you?
So yes, I think McAdams has a responsibility to fact check his published critique. Otherwise, he's basically just posting and commenting on rumors he's heard around campus.
Cannot act like that, and then call it "academic discourse".
No, if the student was lying, I would feel no differently. McAdams would look like an ass and face his punishment that way.
-
Things like this don't necessarily have an immediate impact-ever hear of boiling the frog? It takes a long time to stop a rolling train. By the time one thinks the world is all good, the frog is cooked. Then what? But but but, our intentions weren't to....quick-cpr, turn down the heat, somebody do something, these are things that wise people think about before they act
Mccadams is merely providing a minority voice to campus's all over who are sick and tired of getting the beat down from the liberal majority. We're his methods questionable? Probably. Should he be fired over this? I don't believe so. Is Marquette doing this for"political" reasons? Absolutely! They are trying to hide that behind a veil of a bunch of legalese horse-hockey handbooks, rules, ethics, morals, blah blah blah-lets cut the crap and say it for what it is-they've wanted to get rid of this guy for some time-they believe they've found their crack in the door. As someone said earlier, what if this were over taxes or the Vietnam war, or....this is about gay marriage. One would think Marquette being the jesuit(I think) university it ascribes to be, would welcome an exchange of opinion in a controlled environment. Oh no? It's about a student? Yeah, nice-here's our chance-go get him. I think mu is getting some bad bad advice from attorneys who think like them. Well the same of course can be said about Johnny except he has the constitution behind him
You are exactly right. Look @ Benghazi.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/cbc4daee345a40334c7cb75cced7d46e/tumblr_moe2siA4oW1sodo64o1_500.gif)
-
So only certain kinds of speech qualify as "scholarly" and thus are protected?
Edited to add: I guess only newspaper writers are "journalists" too. Blogs are sorta a thing now, ya know?
Truthfully, yes.
You can't just say whatever you want, whenever you want and call it "scholarly" or "academic discourse".
You want to take on somebody's published works? Go for it. You want to sit in and audit another profs class? I'll even say that's probably okay.
But, you can't just take stuff you hear around campus and publish it without any consequences.
-
So lectures are not covered by academic freedom because they are not fact-checked, peer reviewed, and edited before being disseminated? You are just making stuff up to fit your preferred notions of justice in this case.
Again, please explain what words McAdams used that constituted bullying. Just calling something bullying or harassment doesn't make it so.
A lecture that McAdams heard FIRST HAND, would be fine (in my mind). Go for it.
Hell, I'd even be okay with it if McAdams took this through the proper channels, didn't receive a satisfactory response, and decided to publish all of his steps and how he attempted to get resolution or clarification. It would make MU look bad, but I'd argue that the dude did his due diligence and MU dropped the ball.
But, he didn't do that. He ran with something he heard second hand.
That's not academic discourse.
-
It's not about academic freedom.
If this were a published paper, and McAdams deconstructed it, then so be it. Academic freedom.
If he critiqued a fellow professor's TedTalk, or public speaking engagement, then so be it. Academic freedom.
What McAdams DID do: Publicly critique a TA based upon second hand knowledge, and a private conversation that was recorded without permission. He didn't bother to fact check, he didn't bother to get a response from the TA or the head of the department. He didn't go through the proper channels or consider the consequences.
He sprinted to his keyboard and hit "publish", because this makes for a good talking point for his blog.
He took advantage of the situation and only looked out for himself. He wasn't trying to be some sort of conservative champion. If he was, he would have taken this up with the proper channels. He was trying to generate blog hits, and he got them.
I have no sympathy for such an act. It's not done in the spirit of academic discourse (which I would support).
What if the professor giving the TedTalk was taking a statistics class in the evening, technically making him a student. Would that change anything for you?
I do not believe that a grad instructor's classroom activities as an instructor are covered by FERPA. I don't know that for sure, but smart money is that it's not. Corroborating evidence of this comes from the fact that ratemyprofessor used to have professors' grade breakdown by course, ie, even a professor/grad instructor's grade distribution are not protected by law. (For candor's sake, they no longer do this so I'm not sure if the law has recently changed).
-
Mccadams is merely providing a minority voice to campus's all over who are sick and tired of getting the beat down from the liberal majority. We're his methods questionable? Probably. Should he be fired over this? I don't believe so. Is Marquette doing this for"political" reasons? Absolutely!
I have worked at five institutions of higher education. Small, conservative, private colleges. Large, liberal, public universities. I have been involved in dozens of personnel decisions, directly and indirectly.
One thing that has never, ever, EVER been discussed in all of those decisions, is the political motivations or leanings of the employee. Personnel decisions like these SUCK!! Nobody like them. They are messy. I am 99.9999% certain no one said or implied "HA!!! Now we can get rid of that conservative!!!"
Here is what I do believe. That if McAdams had to do it over, he would have done it very differently...or not at all. And the Marquette administration also wishes he had the ability to do it over. Nobody wanted this.
-
What if the professor giving the TedTalk was taking a statistics class in the evening, technically making him a student. Would that change anything for you?
I do not believe that a grad instructor's classroom activities as an instructor are covered by FERPA. I don't know that for sure, but smart money is that it's not. Corroborating evidence of this comes from the fact that ratemyprofessor used to have professors' grade breakdown by course, ie, even a professor/grad instructor's grade distribution are not protected by law. (For candor's sake, they no longer do this so I'm not sure if the law has recently changed).
Honestly, I don't know where I fall on the whole TA vs Prof debate. To me, it doesn't even matter that much.
I want to cut the TA some slack because they are essentially an intern/apprentice... BUT, MU certainly doesn't charge me less for those classes... so maybe the TAs need to be held accountable for what happens in the classroom? I dunno. It's a messy topic.
My focus is the fact that this was essentially second hand account of a situation, and McAdams took it to his blog. I don't think I'm comfortable protecting that under "academic freedom" or "academic discourse".
I mean, what's next? Spys in every classroom that report back to McAdams so he can critique every liberal professor? Is that what we want? We're going to protect that?
-
I have worked at five institutions of higher education. Small, conservative, private colleges. Large, liberal, public universities. I have been involved in dozens of personnel decisions, directly and indirectly.
One thing that has never, ever, EVER been discussed in all of those decisions, is the political motivations or leanings of the employee. Personnel decisions like these SUCK!! Nobody like them. They are messy. I am 99.9999% certain no one said or implied "HA!!! Now we can get rid of that conservative!!!"
Here is what I do believe. That if McAdams had to do it over, he would have done it very differently...or not at all. And the Marquette administration also wishes he had the ability to do it over. Nobody wanted this.
If no one wanted this at Marquette, why are they going to the extreme step of revoking his tenure and ejecting him from the university? They could have issued a statement and went on their way.
The university is trying to make a point and succeeded.
-
If no one wanted this at Marquette, why are they going to the extreme step of revoking his tenure and ejecting him from the university? They could have issued a statement and went on their way.
Because it was a violation of personnel rules by a (likely) repeat offender.
-
The classic response of those who have nothing to offer.
What are you even trying to say? I already thought that of him not like I was just calling him a name out of nowhere I was just saying that I don't care about him calling me naive because I think he's a pompous a$$
-
If no one wanted this at Marquette, why are they going to the extreme step of revoking his tenure and ejecting him from the university? They could have issued a statement and went on their way.
The university is trying to make a point and succeeded.
Yes yes yes-while I appreciate and respect sultan's experiences, mu didn't have to go "scorched earth" here. That says volumes. I know they stated their reasons, but, I still believe there are some wink-wink, nod-nods going on here. No, not grassy knoll stuff, but we all know the behind the scenes, rest of the story stuff is very common. It always seems to come out in the memoirs or whatever. There is too much at stake here for complete honesty and transparency. Bottom line is, Marquette didn't have to fire him. They could have taken the high road, stated all of their objections to mccadams behavior, right or wrong, and issued a strong reprimand and this all would have gone away sooner and Marquette would have looked more "reasonable" and possibly present mccadams as an extremist yet I do believe we need voices like his to provide balance
-
To the extent that it matters, but the story is getting spread. A very highly respected legal blog/commentator who focuses on free speech watchdog and overreach of criminal justice and civil court system that tweets under the handle @popehat just linked to FIRE's story.
-
I have worked at five institutions of higher education. Small, conservative, private colleges. Large, liberal, public universities. I have been involved in dozens of personnel decisions, directly and indirectly.
One thing that has never, ever, EVER been discussed in all of those decisions, is the political motivations or leanings of the employee. Personnel decisions like these SUCK!! Nobody like them. They are messy. I am 99.9999% certain no one said or implied "HA!!! Now we can get rid of that conservative!!!"
Here is what I do believe. That if McAdams had to do it over, he would have done it very differently...or not at all. And the Marquette administration also wishes he had the ability to do it over. Nobody wanted this.
+1
Does anyone else know of an instance when Marquette fired a tenured professor? I don't, but there is a 25-year gap where I didn't pay much attention to the school except for basketball, so I'd like to know.
I still think it is extremely rare. We hear all the time about Marquette profs doing stuff that would get them canned in the corporate world. I imagine the PTB have a long list of professors that, for one reason or another, they would get rid of if they could. Why would they single McAdams out unless it was an egregious case?
My theory: There is way more to the story than what Marquette can discuss publicly. If that is the case, I doubt McAdams would sue, because all of that information would come out. As it stands now, he can continue to be the victim, gain sympathy, and get a cushy gig or two as a conservative commentator.
-
To the extent that it matters, but the story is getting spread. A very highly respected legal blog/commentator who focuses on free speech watchdog and overreach of criminal justice and civil court system that tweets under the handle @popehat just linked to FIRE's story.
Not @popehat. Anyone but @popehat. It already got favorited twice, and retweeted 20 times.
Oh, the humanity.
-
Not @popehat. Anyone but @popehat. It already got favorited twice, and retweeted 20 times.
Oh, the humanity.
So I guess you would suggest that the extent to which it matters is "not very." Noted.
-
So I guess you would suggest that the extent to which it matters is "not very." Noted.
Bingo bango.
(http://www.stonebridgedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bobbarker.jpg)
-
Bingo bango.
(http://www.stonebridgedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bobbarker.jpg)
Wow he really ended up looking pretty Crypt Keeper-esque there at the end, didn't he?
-
Reading this thread, and the stuff MU is saying, made me go back and read the original post. For all the "harassment, bullying, attacking" being thrown out, I don't think this reads that way at all. Critical, yes. But not to a fireable level.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
-
Not @popehat. Anyone but @popehat. It already got favorited twice, and retweeted 20 times.
Oh, the humanity.
Eugene Volokh is about as big of a name as you'll find in the world of legal scholarship and the Washington Post is about as big of a news outlet as you'll find. You obviously can think the issue doesn't matter, but it is getting noticed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/05/marquette-trying-to-fire-tenured-professor-who-blogged-about-grad-student-instructors-suppression-of-anti-gay-marriage-views/
-
Eugene Volokh is about as big of a name as you'll find in the world of legal scholarship and the Washington Post is about as big of a news outlet as you'll find. You obviously can think the issue doesn't matter, but it is getting noticed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/05/marquette-trying-to-fire-tenured-professor-who-blogged-about-grad-student-instructors-suppression-of-anti-gay-marriage-views/
1. Is Marquette receiving negative attention due to this issue? Yes.
2. Is the negative attention likely to be serious or long lasting? No.
That is the nature of today's media. It is widespread, but disappears quickly. Volokh will have a new blog entry next week.
-
I want to cut the TA some slack because they are essentially an intern/apprentice... BUT, MU certainly doesn't charge me less for those classes... so maybe the TAs need to be held accountable for what happens in the classroom? I dunno. It's a messy topic.
I am at a loss as to why the instructor's status as a grad student has any bearing. The crux is what transpired between the student and his instructor. The instructor's status as grad student is immaterial in that context.
People can't have it both ways. Thank god the student recorded the conversation with his instructor for that is at the heart of this matter.
-
I am at a loss as to why the instructor's status as a grad student has any bearing. The crux is what transpired between the student and his instructor. The instructor's status as grad student is immaterial in that context.
People can't have it both ways. Thank god the student recorded the conversation with his instructor for that is at the heart of this matter.
C'mon, that's NOT a good path to go down. Lots of options for the student. Secret recording and running to McAdams was not a good one.
I think of 10,000 good ways to handle this, especially in an academic setting. Unfortunately, a lot of people chose poor ways to handle it.
-
C'mon, that's NOT a good path to go down. Lots of options for the student. Secret recording and running to McAdams was not a good one.
I think of 10,000 good ways to handle this, especially in an academic setting. Unfortunately, a lot of people chose poor ways to handle it.
I think we are all in agreement that this whole matter was mishandled by every stakeholder. At the end of the day all I care about is how my alma mater handles things. At this point, based on what is publicly available, Marquette is once again looking amateurish. I have three alma maters. I think Marquette gets my money after the other two.
-
Because it was a violation of personnel rules by a (likely) repeat offender.
This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).
-
I think we are all in agreement that this whole matter was mishandled by every stakeholder. At the end of the day all I care about is how my alma mater handles things. At this point, based on what is publicly available, Marquette is once again looking amateurish. I have three alma maters. I think Marquette gets my money after the other two.
Totally fair. Money talks. If enough people feel the same way, MU will start to feel the pinch.
-
This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).
Well, I guess that's what the courts are for.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.
McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong. The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way. The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath. MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.
As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around. If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.
For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess. Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet. If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.
If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.
-
This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).
The truth is, we haven't seen the dude's personnel file. He might have been warned about this kind of thing on 15 different occasions. We don't know, and MU isn't publicly going to come out and say that.
As Sultan stated before, it's unlikely that MU is going off half-cocked on this. They have likely done their homework and know the potential outcome/risk.
Now, it's also possible that the "powers-that-be" at MU are just pissed at McAdams, and they are pushing on this issue because they just hate the guy.
We'll never really know, but we'll get a pretty good idea based upon the eventual lawsuits or lack of lawsuits.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.
McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong. The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way. The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath. MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.
As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around. If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.
For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess. Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet. If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.
If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.
They got Capone for tax evasion, right?
-
They got Capone for tax evasion, right?
Right, but that's kind of my point. If that's whats going on, that means it was a "vendetta" to "get" McAdams and those ruffled have a point.
Either this was a case that justified firing or not unless there are prior bad acts which have a direct bearing on this case. MU is not claiming any prior acts, only this one, as justification. So I have to ask, how is this single act firable?
-
Right, but that's kind of my point. If that's whats going on, that means it was a "vendetta" to "get" McAdams and those ruffled have a point.
Either this was a case that justified firing or not unless there are prior bad acts which have a direct bearing on this case. MU is not claiming any prior acts, only this one, as justification. So I have to ask, how is this single act firable?
Ya, my guess would be that there is a file full of stuff on McAdams, but MU doesn't look good airing ALL of the laundry, so they'll keep the story tight and try to weather the storm.
If there is a lawsuit, the file will have to be opened up, and everybody will take their chances.
-
Ya, my guess would be that there is a file full of stuff on McAdams, but MU doesn't look good airing ALL of the laundry, so they'll keep the story tight and try to weather the storm.
If there is a lawsuit, the file will have to be opened up, and everybody will take their chances.
Just because there is a file on McAdams, or the fact that he may have been written to and scolded does not prove McAdams was in the wrong. Nor does it prove if Marquette over reached or violated McAdams rights as a tenured professor. Many have noted, this is far from over and there are more developments to come.
-
Just because there is a file on McAdams, or the fact that he may have been written to and scolded does not prove McAdams was in the wrong. Nor does it prove if Marquette over reached or violated McAdams rights as a tenured professor. Many have noted, this is far from over and there are more developments to come.
I have no knowledge of a "Magic file", it's just my speculation that MU is NOT firing McAdams based solely on this event.
Now, if the "Magic file" only includes silly stuff about McAdams being written up for having a messy office, then no, that's not applicable.
If the "Magic file" includes specific situations where McAdams been reprimanded for similar behavior, and has a pattern of being a poor co-worker/employee and/or has a log of complaints from other co-workers, then that could be applicable.
*I have no knowledge that this exists, just speculating based upon some HR and employee documentation experience in my own profession.
-
Reading this thread, and the stuff MU is saying, made me go back and read the original post. For all the "harassment, bullying, attacking" being thrown out, I don't think this reads that way at all. Critical, yes. But not to a fireable level.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
MU cannot win this if it is an academic freedom argument so they changed the narrative. (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do).
There is nothing worse in academia today than a charge of bullying. Change the narrative to bullying. Bingo, all the usual suspects jump on board.
-
MU McAdams cannot win this if it is isn't an academic freedom argument so they he changed the narrative. (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do).
Fixed.
-
This is false. Just because some in position of power at Marquette do not approve of McAdams actions, does not prove he violated rules (repeatedly).
Mccadams has been reprimanded before for identifying student's by name on his blog.
-
Bottom line. Nobody on this thread has any idea what is in Dr. McAdams' personnel file.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how all of this escalates to a firing which is by all accounts extremely rare.
McAdams was wrong but it seems relatively mild wrong. The teacher was wrong but again in a relatively simple, I'm learning way. The student was wrong in how he handled the aftermath. MU was wrong in how they handled this, especially early because they blew it up to get the attention it's getting.
As a dispassionate observer, there seems to be a lot of fervor here, which is why I think we are seeing all this political crap thrown around. If the actual event doesn't deserve a firing, then either something happened in the background we don't know about, or this is a totalization of McAdams history of being a curmudgeon and thorn in MU's side.
For the former, well we'll just have to see I guess. Though even my vivid imagination can't conjure a scenario where both MU and McAdams want to keep it quiet. If MU doesn't share than McAdams will in a lawsuit.
If it's the latter, I have a real problem with that, because it is now about academic and intellectual freedom or lack thereof.
How was the TA in the wrong? She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage. The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate. The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time. McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog. He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal. McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer. McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone. If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments. He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.
-
Bottom line. Nobody on this thread has any idea what is in Dr. McAdams' personnel file.
I don't think you need to know whats in his personnel file to decide what he did was wrong. You could see why people might argue they don't agree with the punishment.
-
I don't think you need to know whats in his personnel file to decide what he did was wrong. You could see why people might argue they don't agree with the punishment.
I agree, but it could be argued that what he did wasn't egregious enough to warrant firing.
I personally would fire him, but that's because I run Ammo Corp., and I'm in the private sector.
Academia is a little different.
Now, if the personnel file is full of other similar situations and written warnings, then MU might have enough back-up to win a wrongful termination case.
-
MU cannot win this if it is an academic freedom argument so they changed the narrative. (Ask Sultan, that is what PR staff do).
Actually no.
Not change the narrative. Explain the narrative. I wouldn't lie.
-
In a somewhat similar situation:
Before Marquette University punished the outspoken conservative professor John McAdams for blogging, Chicago State University was embroiled in a similar fight with two of its blogging faculty.
A federal judge ruled this week that those professors can continue their First Amendment lawsuit against the administration for allegedly chilling their speech, using an expansive reading of the school’s trademark rights among other policies.
The case is part of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Stand Up for Speech project, and the second this month to get a judge’s blessing to move forward. The ruling last week at Iowa State University also involved disputed trademarks.
Professors Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz contribute to a blog that’s frequently critical of the CSU administration, CSU Faculty Voice. Though the blog isn’t hosted on university servers, the professors claim that the school has tried to shut it down.
CSU’s policies on cyberbullying and computer usage are broad enough to chill the professors’ expression, they said, and the school said the blog’s use of CSU’s name and trademarks “caused confusion” and “implied CSU’s endorsement” of its commentary.
‘Civility’ as a threat to take legal action
Judge Joan Gottschall focused on a cease-and-desist letter the administration sent to Beverly, specifically its reference to “civility” – a watchword that has gripped faculty around the country since the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign revoked a job offer to anti-Israel academic Steven Salaita.
CSU General Counsel Patrick Cage told Beverly the blog’s “lack of civility and professionalism” violates university policies. The professors “stress that this letter is dated one business day after” a blog post accused the school’s interim provost of having “partially falsified her resume,” Gottschall said.
Though the administration says the “civility” reference wasn’t a legal threat to use the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies against the professors, “t is eminently reasonable to read the letter as a demand to shut down” the blog for its “alleged failure to meet CSU on-line civility standards,” Gottschall said.
Both policies have civility overtones, the judge said: One prohibits “any communication which tends to embarrass or humiliate any member of the community” and the other “could be read as prohibiting a series of negative blog posts.” Gottschall noted neither policy explicitly limits itself to material hosted on the university’s servers.
The professors have clearly stated “their First Amendment rights were chilled” because of CSU’s language against their blog, Gottschall said, denying the school’s claim that their fears were “speculative.” She said the professors raised the school’s trademark theories only for “context” about their First Amendment claims.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the professors’ next goal is to get a preliminary injunction against the school, so it can’t enforce the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies or send any more cease-and-desist letters about the blog.
As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I said I expected FIRE to get involved if MU doesn't revoke the punishment. Their MO has been to go after public universities - even to the extent of fighting for the right to bully students - but I really think they might get involved here.
-
How was the TA in the wrong? She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage. The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate. The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time. McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog. He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal. McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer. McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone. If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments. He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.
That's not illegal in Wisconsin.
-
In a somewhat similar situation:
Before Marquette University punished the outspoken conservative professor John McAdams for blogging, Chicago State University was embroiled in a similar fight with two of its blogging faculty.
A federal judge ruled this week that those professors can continue their First Amendment lawsuit against the administration for allegedly chilling their speech, using an expansive reading of the school’s trademark rights among other policies.
The case is part of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Stand Up for Speech project, and the second this month to get a judge’s blessing to move forward. The ruling last week at Iowa State University also involved disputed trademarks.
Professors Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz contribute to a blog that’s frequently critical of the CSU administration, CSU Faculty Voice. Though the blog isn’t hosted on university servers, the professors claim that the school has tried to shut it down.
CSU’s policies on cyberbullying and computer usage are broad enough to chill the professors’ expression, they said, and the school said the blog’s use of CSU’s name and trademarks “caused confusion” and “implied CSU’s endorsement” of its commentary.
‘Civility’ as a threat to take legal action
Judge Joan Gottschall focused on a cease-and-desist letter the administration sent to Beverly, specifically its reference to “civility” – a watchword that has gripped faculty around the country since the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign revoked a job offer to anti-Israel academic Steven Salaita.
CSU General Counsel Patrick Cage told Beverly the blog’s “lack of civility and professionalism” violates university policies. The professors “stress that this letter is dated one business day after” a blog post accused the school’s interim provost of having “partially falsified her resume,” Gottschall said.
Though the administration says the “civility” reference wasn’t a legal threat to use the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies against the professors, “t is eminently reasonable to read the letter as a demand to shut down” the blog for its “alleged failure to meet CSU on-line civility standards,” Gottschall said.
Both policies have civility overtones, the judge said: One prohibits “any communication which tends to embarrass or humiliate any member of the community” and the other “could be read as prohibiting a series of negative blog posts.” Gottschall noted neither policy explicitly limits itself to material hosted on the university’s servers.
The professors have clearly stated “their First Amendment rights were chilled” because of CSU’s language against their blog, Gottschall said, denying the school’s claim that their fears were “speculative.” She said the professors raised the school’s trademark theories only for “context” about their First Amendment claims.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the professors’ next goal is to get a preliminary injunction against the school, so it can’t enforce the cyberbullying or computer-usage policies or send any more cease-and-desist letters about the blog.
As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I said I expected FIRE to get involved if MU doesn't revoke the punishment. Their MO has been to go after public universities - even to the extent of fighting for the right to bully students - but I really think they might get involved here.
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?
MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?
MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?
I don't think it does. I think it may be what is used in a lawsuit, though. And does it hinge on the fact that he uses "Marquette" in the name of his blog?
I think I stated earlier (if not, I meant to), that so far FIRE has targeted public universities across the country in defending conservatives that it thinks were wronged in free speech issues. Circumstances here are somewhat similar, but I am not privy to their thinking about going after private schools.
The cases are interesting. At Iowa State, they are contending that ISU does not have the right to administer its own trademark in a case where pro-pot students wore t-shirts including the ISU cardinal mascot. So even though FIRE is a Koch brothers funded organization, it is not strictly about protecting the rights of conservatives though that is the main focus.
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?
MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?
There is a difference: the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private schools like Marquette so you can't bring any type of constitutional claim. However, McAdams has a contract-based case that I suspect can likely survive summary judgment and get to a jury.
Essentially, the argument would be: Marquette contractually promised to treat me as if I were at a public institution and uphold identical standards of academic speech and debate; the university then violated that contractual promise by firing me for what I said on my blog.
-
There is a difference: the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private schools like Marquette so you can't bring any type of constitutional claim. However, McAdams has a contract-based case that I suspect can likely survive summary judgment and get to a jury.
Essentially, the argument would be: Marquette contractually promised to treat me as if I were at a public institution and uphold identical standards of academic speech and debate; the university then violated that contractual promise by firing me for what I said on my blog.
Good to know, that's for the clarification.
I have a reasonable understanding of private sector employment regulations and wrongful termination stuff, but academia is a while different animal, I suppose.
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but does anybody know how free speech would come into play in MU's case?
MU is a private institution, so would this be a violation of free speech? How are non-profits and academic institutions viewed under the law? Is there a difference if it's a public school vs a private school?
Correct me if I'm wrong. Marquette is not attempting to stop McAdams free speech. They are merely not willing to employ him anymore because of it. There is a difference.
-
How was the TA in the wrong? She was teaching a class and used an example on gay marriage. The student then came up after class and said he was offended and wanted to have a class debate. The class didn't call for a debate they didn't have time. McAdams has gotten in trouble before for identifying students by name on his blog. He ran a story based on information he got from one persons point of view, and a recording of a private conversation between a TA and a student, which is illegal. McAdams identified the TA by her full name which led to her receiving a lot of hate mail basically leading to her transfer. McAdams wasn't trying to protect anyone. If he wanted this to be a learning situation he could have taken it up with the departments. He only had his interests in heart, not what was best for the student, TA, or even MArquette University.
The TA was wrong because she treated a students opinion of a policy decision as potentially homophobic, which is as stifling as anything McAdams did. And recording a conversation is not illegal in Wisconsin.
FYI, I think the TA is least "guilty" in this whole mess but she doesn't get a complete pass.
-
The TA was wrong because she treated a students opinion of a policy decision as potentially homophobic, which is as stifling as anything McAdams did. And recording a conversation is not illegal in Wisconsin.
FYI, I think the TA is least "guilty" in this whole mess but she doesn't get a complete pass.
It's what being a TA is all about. When you make a mistake, you should be taken aside - in private - and it becomes a teaching moment. Being ridiculed online? Not so much.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. Marquette is not attempting to stop McAdams free speech. They are merely not willing to employ him anymore because of it. There is a difference.
Okay, but state schools can't fire people as a result of their speech. McAdams argument will be that he was contractually promised the same protection.
-
It's what being a TA is all about. When you make a mistake, you should be taken aside - in private - and it becomes a teaching moment. Being ridiculed online? Not so much.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but ridiculed is a bit hyperbolic.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you, but ridiculed is a bit hyperbolic.
Did he ridicule her? Not really. But I'd be willing to bet my life he knew exactly the type of response he was going to insight from his readers and by publishing her name he knew exactly the type of letters and such she was going to be receiving.
Again I disagree with the firing, perhaps revoking tenure so he has to hold himself to a higher standard than he currently does but not firing him.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong. Marquette is not attempting to stop McAdams free speech. They are merely not willing to employ him anymore because of it. There is a difference.
Yea, it's called wrongful termination.
-
If his argument is going to be free speech, maybe he should hire this guy, 1st amendment rights expert that may also be looking for a job.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/05/former-texas-law-school-dean-arrested-on-prostitution-charges/ (http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/05/former-texas-law-school-dean-arrested-on-prostitution-charges/)
-
Yea, it's called wrongful termination.
WI is an at will employment state. The fact that he made a blog post that played a part in a TA (also a student, mind you) feeling threatened enough to leave MU is case enough. He has no case. Note, I'm not saying his blog post threatened the TA, but it sure caused a lot of grief for the girl because of his readers response (and following fox news story).
Here's a more accurate account of the details...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
-
WI is an at will employment state. The fact that he made a blog post that played a part in a TA (also a student, mind you) feeling threatened enough to leave MU is case enough. He has no case. Note, I'm not saying his blog post threatened the TA, but it sure caused a lot of grief for the girl because of his readers response (and following fox news story).
Here's a more accurate account of the details...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
Not so fast. At will employment is simply a default rule that can be modified by contract. MU can't just fire Wojo and not pay his buyout by claiming at will employment.
-
Not so fast. At will employment is simply a default rule that can be modified by contract. MU can't just fire Wojo and not pay his buyout by claiming at will employment.
Unless he was terminated for cause, and in that case they have procedures to follow outlined in their faculty handbook.
-
Unless he was terminated for cause, and in that case they have procedures to follow outlined in their faculty handbook.
Not saying there isn't a way he can be fired, just that it is more complicated than calling a blog post harassment and showing him the door.
-
WI is an at will employment state. The fact that he made a blog post that played a part in a TA (also a student, mind you) feeling threatened enough to leave MU is case enough. He has no case. Note, I'm not saying his blog post threatened the TA, but it sure caused a lot of grief for the girl because of his readers response (and following fox news story).
Here's a more accurate account of the details...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
Does it logically follow that the blog post would result in the TA being harassed enough to leave school to justify revoking tenure which is apparently a very big deal?
For this to fly with me it would have to be a foregone conclusion that such a blog post would result in the TA being "forced out" and that McAdams had to reasonable know such an event would occur. The timeline is important here....
If I remember the timeline correctly.....The Fox News story didn't break until AFTER Marquette suspended McAdams and issued a statement about it. The threats and harassment that the TA cited as reason for leaving the university occurred AFTER the Fox News story. So if MU doesn't overreact initially the rest of the stuff probably doesn't happen and it's settled internally.
Again McAdams was wrong but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that McAdams could know the outcome could be what it was and the blog post by itself is not nearly enough to fire someone.
-
I personally hated McAdams when I was in school. Terrible professor. Frequently unprofessional. Trashes Marquette whenever he gets the chance. A long history of questionable conduct. I think Marquette is better off without him.
However, I think Marquette is on very shaky ground by doing this. I think standing up for the grad student is the right thing, but messing with academic freedom and tenure puts the university at significant risk. I'm not sure it was the right move.
If I was in power, I would have kept McAdams, asked for his resignation, and then minimized his role and power at the university as much as possible. Let him teach one obscure course a semester and that's it. Tenure and academic freedom don't give him the right to what kind of role he wants at the university.
-
I personally hated McAdams when I was in school. Terrible professor. Frequently unprofessional. Trashes Marquette whenever he gets the chance. A long history of questionable conduct. I think Marquette is better off without him.
However, I think Marquette is on very shaky ground by doing this. I think standing up for the grad student is the right thing, but messing with academic freedom and tenure puts the university at significant risk. I'm not sure it was the right move.
If I was in power, I would have kept McAdams, asked for his resignation, and then minimized his role and power at the university as much as possible. Let him teach one obscure course a semester and that's it. Tenure and academic freedom don't give him the right to what kind of role he wants at the university.
Do you think he would not be writing about this in his blog (using the Marquette name) almost every day? He is an agitator. It's what he does and it is written from a specific political viewpoint.
I think he would be an even bigger thorn this way on a much more consistent basis.
-
People do realize that a typical settlement for wrongful revocation of tenure is only about 2 years salary. I think MU would be glad to get rid of him, even for that type of financial risk.
-
People do realize that a typical settlement for wrongful revocation of tenure is only about 2 years salary. I think MU would be glad to get rid of him, even for that type of financial risk.
Where is that information from?
If a settlement is not reached and litigation plays out, could one of the conditions/outcomes include reinstatement of McAdams tenured position?
-
Does it logically follow that the blog post would result in the TA being harassed enough to leave school to justify revoking tenure which is apparently a very big deal?
For this to fly with me it would have to be a foregone conclusion that such a blog post would result in the TA being "forced out" and that McAdams had to reasonable know such an event would occur. The timeline is important here....
If I remember the timeline correctly.....The Fox News story didn't break until AFTER Marquette suspended McAdams and issued a statement about it. The threats and harassment that the TA cited as reason for leaving the university occurred AFTER the Fox News story. So if MU doesn't overreact initially the rest of the stuff probably doesn't happen and it's settled internally.
Again McAdams was wrong but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that McAdams could know the outcome could be what it was and the blog post by itself is not nearly enough to fire someone.
Yup...well stated
-
I personally hated McAdams when I was in school. Terrible professor. Frequently unprofessional. Trashes Marquette whenever he gets the chance. A long history of questionable conduct. I think Marquette is better off without him.
However, I think Marquette is on very shaky ground by doing this. I think standing up for the grad student is the right thing, but messing with academic freedom and tenure puts the university at significant risk. I'm not sure it was the right move.
If I was in power, I would have kept McAdams, asked for his resignation, and then minimized his role and power at the university as much as possible. Let him teach one obscure course a semester and that's it. Tenure and academic freedom don't give him the right to what kind of role he wants at the university.
You are the first person I have ever come across that thought he was a terrible professor.
-
You are the first person I have ever come across that thought he was a terrible professor.
You don't know many people who took his classes then. At least in the last 8 years. I was told when I was there that he used to be a lot more quality but he became increasingly bitter and unprofessional over the years.
-
Where is that information from?
If a settlement is not reached and litigation plays out, could one of the conditions/outcomes include reinstatement of McAdams tenured position?
There are a few famous cases, including one that led to a University president losing his job.
-
You don't know many people who took his classes then. At least in the last 8 years. I was told when I was there that he used to be a lot more quality but he became increasingly bitter and unprofessional over the years.
Absolutely correct, I don't know people that took his classes recently or for that matter, many young MU students. Back in the day, people that took his classes enjoyed them.
But just for giggles, he is still getting a B+ rating from RateMyProfessor and many of those ratings are recent.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814
-
There are a few famous cases, including one that led to a University president losing his job.
Don't be lazy, cite the cases.
-
Don't be lazy, cite the cases.
This is the most famous case.
http://www.wdam.com/story/1692435/usm-fires-2-professors-in-massacre (http://www.wdam.com/story/1692435/usm-fires-2-professors-in-massacre)
-
This is the most famous case.
http://www.wdam.com/story/1692435/usm-fires-2-professors-in-massacre (http://www.wdam.com/story/1692435/usm-fires-2-professors-in-massacre)
This was definitely an interesting situation. The story (similar to Marquette"s situation) is complex and dragged out for a long period of time.
In regard to McAdams, do you believe this example parallels an abuse of power behind the Marquette curtain?
More on the USM outcome here:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/5852 (http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/5852)
and here:
http://msbusiness.com/blog/2004/04/26/in-the-middle-of-a-storm-dvorak-credentials-stand-up/ (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2004/04/26/in-the-middle-of-a-storm-dvorak-credentials-stand-up/)
-
This was definitely an interesting situation. The story (similar to Marquette"s situation) is complex and dragged out for a long period of time.
In regard to McAdams, do you believe this example parallels an abuse of power behind the Marquette curtain?
More on the USM outcome here:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/5852 (http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/5852)
and here:
http://msbusiness.com/blog/2004/04/26/in-the-middle-of-a-storm-dvorak-credentials-stand-up/ (http://msbusiness.com/blog/2004/04/26/in-the-middle-of-a-storm-dvorak-credentials-stand-up/)
No, entirely different situations, as evident by the fact that every faculty organization in the country was crying foul in the USM case. Not only that, but the state supreme court got involved. That was a clear abuse of power by the president of the university and led to a no confidence vote in the University President.
Only the religious right is crying foul in the MU case.
Even with a clear abuse of power the two USM faculty only got two years pay and full retirement benefits (even though they needed a couple years more to reach that level).
-
No, entirely different situations, as evident by the fact that every faculty organization in the country was crying foul in the USM case. Not only that, but the state supreme court got involved. That was a clear abuse of power by the president of the university and led to a no confidence vote in the University President.
Only the religious right is crying foul in the MU case.
Lots of blanket statements there, "every faculty organization in the country" "only the religious right".
Edited: The issue at hand does not have to do with the actual subject matter of discussion (actual lack of discussion) between Cheryl Abbate and the anonymous student, but the actions McAdams displayed on his personal blog and Marquette's reaction.
-
Lots of blanket statements there, "every faculty organization in the country" "only the religious right".
I'll give you the that the latter was a blanket statement. The former is true, every faculty organization was up in arms in the USM case. It was an egregious act. Both of the faculty revoked of tenure, in that case, had job offers (promotions) by other Universities before the day was out.
-
No, entirely different situations, as evident by the fact that every faculty organization in the country was crying foul in the USM case. Not only that, but the state supreme court got involved. That was a clear abuse of power by the president of the university and led to a no confidence vote in the University President.
Only the religious right is crying foul in the MU case.
Even with a clear abuse of power the two USM faculty only got two years pay and full retirement benefits (even though they needed a couple years more to reach that level).
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/80935bce0aefcab46dba74164879cac1/tumblr_n40jr0XyWT1smcbm7o1_400.gif)
-
I'll give you the that the latter was a blanket statement. The former is true, every faculty organization was up in arms in the USM case. It was an egregious act. Both of the faculty revoked of tenure, in that case, had job offers (promotions) by other Universities before the day was out.
Making sure I am following correctly. Are you saying only the religous right is complaining about the currrent MU case, or a previous one?
-
Making sure I am following correctly. Are you saying only the religous right is complaining about the currrent MU case, or a previous one?
I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally. I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.
The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.
-
I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally. I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.
The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.
Most of the items I've read from organizations that are upset have nothing to do with religious overtones at all, but simply academic freedome and such. Of course some will take the religious angle, but in the end this will be litigated on the adademic rights argument and wrongful termination claims....if they can be proven.
-
WI is an at will employment state. The fact that he made a blog post that played a part in a TA (also a student, mind you) feeling threatened enough to leave MU is case enough. He has no case. Note, I'm not saying his blog post threatened the TA, but it sure caused a lot of grief for the girl because of his readers response (and following fox news story).
Here's a more accurate account of the details...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/20/marquette-u-grad-student-shes-being-targeted-after-ending-class-discussion-gay
by these standards, is a newspaper or any other means of pronunciation of someone's activities or conduct, held up to scrutiny dependent upon the reaction of the collective against the "victim"? unless they can show mccadams blog express purpose was to garner death threats and ultimately a school transfer, that's just a really unfortunate blow-back. mccadams cannot be held responsible for some idiot going "one flew over the cuckcoo's nest" on cheryl abbate. if the journal-sentinal prints a a story which causes mean a$$ reactions to the subject, can that subject sue? yes, i knowe it depends on the facts, but...?
mccadams purpose was not to make abbate's life that miserable. he merely feels the need to point out one of the many "beat downs" of liberal vs. conservative ideological hypocrisies that have been occurring on universities for too long. he's taking the "i'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore" attitude and unfortunately or not, he's speaking for a lot of people. he's trying to provide a voice for the conservatives who for too long have been getting shoved to the side and are actually a minority on college campuses.
-
mccadams purpose was not to make abbate's life that miserable. he merely feels the need to point out one of the many "beat downs" of liberal vs. conservative ideological hypocrisies that have been occurring on universities for too long. he's taking the "i'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore" attitude and unfortunately or not, he's speaking for a lot of people. he's trying to provide a voice for the conservatives who for too long have been getting shoved to the side and are actually a minority on college campuses.
(http://www.parkingspace23.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/straw_men.jpg)
-
I was referring to this one, but admitted it was a gross stretch and way over generalized. I forget that many take internet posts absolutely literally. I meant to imply that comparatively few care about this case, those most up in arms about it do align with the religious right, as it has been politicized.
The other one had no political agenda, but it received press around the US and universally within academia the actions were considered absurd.
You? Forgetful? Ya don't say
-
(http://www.parkingspace23.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/straw_men.jpg)
we have a nice, civil thread going here and for fear of it being interpreted as going political, i need to refrain from putting more info backing my claim of universities being more liberal vs. conservative and why people like dr. mccabe fills a void. now i'm not saying what he did is right or wrong, but he is trying to lend support to a widely held minority voice. i'd hate to see the ole padlock going up on this topic. i believe most people could show with the proper eveidence, that my argument would then turn strawman into a "brick house" ;D
-
we have a nice, civil thread going here and for fear of it being interpreted as going political, i need to refrain from putting more info backing my claim of universities being more liberal vs. conservative and why people like dr. mccabe fills a void. now i'm not saying what he did is right or wrong, but he is trying to lend support to a widely held minority voice. i'd hate to see the ole padlock going up on this topic. i believe most people could show with the proper eveidence, that my argument would then turn strawman into a "brick house" ;D
Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.
You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.
McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.
-
Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.
You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.
McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.
Let the courts decide...or MU can write a check to make it go away...not that this hasn't happened a time or two.
-
Let the courts decide...or MU can write a check to make it go away...not that this hasn't happened a time or two.
Do you think what he did was appropriate?
I'm not talking about MU's level of punishment... just McAdam's actions. Do you think it's appropriate?
-
Regardless of McAdams politics, what he did was wrong.
You can't have senior level professors taking second hand accounts and using them to critique a fellow employee. It's not politics. It's not academic freedom. It's about appropriate conduct of a senior level professor.
McAdams could be the only conservative in all of academia, and it wouldn't change a thing. What he did wasn't appropriate.
That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.
Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student. Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it? If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?
-
Let's just say for the sake of argument that Dr. McAdams was out of line. Having read the blog post, I think it was pretty mild. I'm also not sure where the "2nd hand accounts" idea came from. McAdams had the audio account. I realize for various reasons this may not be admissible in court, but for our purposes, Abbatte has not denied saying it.
Many Marquette grads have faced worse in their first jobs out of school. I worked for one of the most manipulative psychos in business my first job, and this was in a very well respected company. I learned from it. She will face a lot worse if she moves up the ladder.
I firmly believe that the "Dr. McAdams was mean to Ms. Abbatte" line is PR spin. MU realized that was a better argument in these times, so they changed the narrative.
-
That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.
Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student. Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it? If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?
It's a fair point.
If we can all agree that what McAdam's did was unprofessional, then let's examine the punishment:
Is it too much? Did MU go too far?
To me, this seems like a "last straw" scenario, but I'm obviously not aware of McAdam's conversations with his bosses or his personnel file, so this is just my best guess.
That's where the debate will come. If MU has specifically warned him about his conduct (in writing), and have specific evidence in his personnel file, then I think MU can argue they have cause to remove him.
If this is really McAdam's first warning or MU hasn't documented previous issues, then McAdams has a good case.
To me, this isn't about academic freedom, and this isn't about politics. Those are strawmen. It's about professionalism in the workplace and respect for coworkers.
-
It's about professionalism in the workplace and respect for coworkers.
Nailed it.
-
Let's just say for the sake of argument that Dr. McAdams was out of line. Having read the blog post, I think it was pretty mild. I'm also not sure where the "2nd hand accounts" idea came from. McAdams had the audio account. I realize for various reasons this may not be admissible in court, but for our purposes, Abbatte has not denied saying it.
Many Marquette grads have faced worse in their first jobs out of school. I worked for one of the most manipulative psychos in business my first job, and this was in a very well respected company. I learned from it. She will face a lot worse if she moves up the ladder.
I firmly believe that the "Dr. McAdams was mean to Ms. Abbatte" line is PR spin. MU realized that was a better argument in these times, so they changed the narrative.
Right, but McAdams had no proof or verification that the audio was actually real, or context of the audio. In all seriousness, he's lucky it was real, and it wasn't just a student with an axe to grind.
Again, if McAdams wants to take on MU and it's liberal professors, more power to him. But, taking 1 student's account and then running to his blog without speaking to the TA, her professor, the department head, etc. is unprofessional at best, and at worst, harassment.
-
That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.
Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student. Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it? If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?
Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?
In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about? In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed? In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post? I really could go on. But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.
-
That is obviously the university's position, but forgive people for having a difficult time buying that "protecting students from harassment" is the only issue in play here. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which a liberal professor would get bounced for the same behavior as McAdams.
Suppose the student wanted to discuss a woman's right to abortion and the graduate student told him that topic wouldn't be allowed on a Catholic campus; the student then informs their leftist women's studies professor about the incident, who then takes to the blogosphere to criticize the graduate student. Does anyone really believe that professor would get fired over it? If they were, wouldn't people on the left be outraged?
1. The professor wouldn't get fired
2. Outrage would be limited to conservatives.
3. Liberals would dismiss the entire "appropriate/not appropriate" issue.
Why? Because in academia, they have all the power. It's what happens with a super majority. You can rid yourself of a pain in the ass and claim politics had nothing to do with it (he was "inappropriate") or protect your own in the opposite scenario on the grounds of academic freedom, a higher principle than "appropriateness". Conservatives would no doubt do the same thing if they held all the power but to claim politics has nothing to do with this ignores the real world.
-
1. The professor wouldn't get fired
2. Outrage would be limited to conservatives.
3. Liberals would dismiss the entire "appropriate/not appropriate" issue.
Why? Because in academia, they have all the power. It's what happens with a super majority. You can rid yourself of a pain in the ass and claim politics had nothing to do with it (he was "inappropriate") or protect your own in the opposite scenario on the grounds of academic freedom, a higher principle than "appropriateness". Conservatives would no doubt do the same thing if they held all the power but to claim politics has nothing to do with this ignores the real world.
If you're right, McAdams is going to get a nice check.
-
Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?
In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about? In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed? In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post? I really could go on. But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.
This very well may be true, but that's not MU's narrative in this issue. I'm win Ammo on this, McAdams was unprofessional period. Where I diverge is that MU has said this one event of unprofessionalism is grounds for dismissal and I very much disagree with that. This very well may be about a pattern of unprofessionalism, but then SAY THAT!.
Based on the facts/stories/PR statements from all involved, MU has completely overreacted in the best case, worst case they are being manipulative and shady.
I agree McAdams was unprofessional in this situation. I agree that McAdams was likely unprofessional in other situations. In total, perhaps that earns a dismissal....but it doesn't matter because Marquette isn't making that case. They are simply saying, McAdams was unprofessional in his interactions(or lack thereof) with the TA and that is grounds for dismissal...full stop.
-
This very well may be true, but that's not MU's narrative in this issue. I'm win Ammo on this, McAdams was unprofessional period. Where I diverge is that MU has said this one event of unprofessionalism is grounds for dismissal and I very much disagree with that. This very well may be about a pattern of unprofessionalism, but then SAY THAT!.
Based on the facts/stories/PR statements from all involved, MU has completely overreacted in the best case, worst case they are being manipulative and shady.
I agree McAdams was unprofessional in this situation. I agree that McAdams was likely unprofessional in other situations. In total, perhaps that earns a dismissal....but it doesn't matter because Marquette isn't making that case. They are simply saying, McAdams was unprofessional in his interactions(or lack thereof) with the TA and that is grounds for dismissal...full stop.
Ya, I'm just wondering if MU is holding back any ammunition they have and choosing not to air it publicly.
Might be better to take some heat for a few weeks from 1 group, instead of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and taking heat from:
1. Conservative talkers
2. Liberals who will ask why MU put up with these shenanigans for so long.
3. Other profs who don't think somebody's entire personnel record should be aired out.
Again, this assumes that there is a pattern. If there isn't, I'd say McAdams has a good case.
We'll never know for sure as everybody will firmly be entrenched in their camps, but if we ever find out how much money is exchanged, that will give us a good idea. Ben Franklins don't know politics.
-
Ya, I'm just wondering if MU is holding back any ammunition they have and choosing not to air it publicly.
Might be better to take some heat for a few weeks from 1 group, instead of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and taking heat from:
1. Conservative talkers
2. Liberals who will ask why MU put up with these shenanigans for so long.
3. Other profs who don't think somebody's entire personnel record should be aired out.
Again, this assumes that there is a pattern. If there isn't, I'd say McAdams has a good case.
We'll never know for sure as everybody will firmly be entrenched in their camps, but if we ever find out how much money is exchanged, that will give us a good idea. Ben Franklins don't know politics.
You could be right, and that's what MU is doing. If so, I think it's dumb as they are opening themselves up far more than they need to. This just compounds the mistake they made by escalating it in the first place. This gets no attention if they don't ban/suspend McAdams from campus.
-
You could be right, and that's what MU is doing. If so, I think it's dumb as they are opening themselves up far more than they need to. This just compounds the mistake they made by escalating it in the first place. This gets no attention if they don't ban/suspend McAdams from campus.
You'll get no argument from me.
MU ain't perfect, and this thing might get worse before it gets better.
-
Why don't you create the same set circumstances to actually create a real comparable?
In your dream scenario, does your leftist women's studies professor have a verifiable pattern of behavior that the university has warned the said professor about? In your dream scenario does said professor name not go through the proper university channels to see if this could be addressed? In your dream scenario does your professor knowingly leave out facts in blog post? I really could go on. But hey, just create false comparable to make yourself feel better.
Defensive much? It is a thought experiment and I obviously didn't spend an hour laying out every last detail for a simple hypothetical. If it makes things easier for you, fill in all of the facts that you think make the scenario fully comparable. The women's studies professor has a history of outlandish blog posts, didn't investigate the student's story at all, didn't contact administrators, etc.
Do you honestly think it is likely that professor would be fired?
But hey, you could always just fight the hypothetical by brainstorming a bunch of deficiencies in my two sentence question in order to make yourself feel better.
-
If you're right, McAdams is going to get a nice check.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what's in his "file". There may well be enough there to justify his being canned. He's been tilting at windmills a long time and the powerful don't particularly appreciate Don Quixote types. I'm sure they've been building a case for decades. If the institution, corporation, etc., sees you as the enemy of their orthodoxy they look for the justification to fire you. Perhaps McAdams gave them enough ammo. But please, please, let's not be naïve enough to think his having the "wrong" politics doesn't affect the way his actions are viewed.
-
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what's in his "file". There may well be enough there to justify his being canned. He's been tilting at windmills a long time and the powerful don't particularly appreciate Don Quixote types. I'm sure they've been building a case for decades. If the institution, corporation, etc., sees you as the enemy of their orthodoxy they look for the justification to fire you. Perhaps McAdams did. But please, please, let's not be naïve enough to think his having the "wrong" politics doesn't affect the way his actions are viewed.
You're not wrong, I guess I'm just assuming the don quixote stuff is more the issue vs specific political views.
-
1. The professor wouldn't get fired
2. Outrage would be limited to conservatives.
3. Liberals would dismiss the entire "appropriate/not appropriate" issue.
Why? Because in academia, they have all the power. It's what happens with a super majority. You can rid yourself of a pain in the ass and claim politics had nothing to do with it (he was "inappropriate") or protect your own in the opposite scenario on the grounds of academic freedom, a higher principle than "appropriateness". Conservatives would no doubt do the same thing if they held all the power but to claim politics has nothing to do with this ignores the real world.
thank you lenny-you were able to say it better than i. just the reality of the situation, that's all. we're not going to change that aspect of it by denying it-it is what it is and now that mccabe has made his bed...there's probably some merit on each side. the winner or loser is to be determined
-
Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?
-
Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?
Not at all. Another strong statement from Lovell.
-
Ya, I'm just wondering if MU is holding back any ammunition they have and choosing not to air it publicly.
Might be better to take some heat for a few weeks from 1 group, instead of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and taking heat from:
1. Conservative talkers
2. Liberals who will ask why MU put up with these shenanigans for so long.
3. Other profs who don't think somebody's entire personnel record should be aired out.
Again, this assumes that there is a pattern. If there isn't, I'd say McAdams has a good case.
*If* this isn't the culmination of a pattern of behavior, then Marquette completely overreacted and Marquette did indeed screw this up royally.
I do understand mu03eng's point though. Unless their attorneys are hyper-sensitive, why not say "pattern of behavior?"
-
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what's in his "file". There may well be enough there to justify his being canned. He's been tilting at windmills a long time and the powerful don't particularly appreciate Don Quixote types. I'm sure they've been building a case for decades. If the institution, corporation, etc., sees you as the enemy of their orthodoxy they look for the justification to fire you. Perhaps McAdams gave them enough ammo. But please, please, let's not be naïve enough to think his having the "wrong" politics doesn't affect the way his actions are viewed.
Look, almost every college campus has a faculty member or two that are Don Quixote types. Most of the time they are ignored, like McAdams has largely been, because confronting them brings more attention to them, and because they aren't really all that powerful in the grand scheme of things. I mean, McAdam's spouting off on Belling et. al. over the past 15 years hasn't been all that harmful to Marquette.
-
Look, almost every college campus has a faculty member or two that are Don Quixote types. Most of the time they are ignored, like McAdams has largely been, because confronting them brings more attention to them, and because they aren't really all that powerful in the grand scheme of things. I mean, McAdam's spouting off on Belling et. al. over the past 15 years hasn't been all that harmful to Marquette.
Dr. McGuire's spouting off has not hurt MU either, but MU has not disciplined him.*
*I had Dr. McGuire as a prof in 1981? Disagreed with him, but as I became older, hopefully wiser, appreciated that MU allowed his view of the world to be presented.
-
Dr. McGuire's spouting off has not hurt MU either, but MU has not disciplined him.*
Exactly. So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?
Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?" Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?
My guess it is that it's the latter.
-
Exactly. So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?
Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?" Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?
My guess it is that it's the latter.
This is a canard put up by MU PR. They needed to change the narrative, and this was the new story.
-
Exactly. So why is MU coming down on McAdams but not McGuire?
Is it because McGuire's politics are "right" but McAdams' are "wrong?" Or is it because McGuire apparently never had an issue will treating students and colleagues with respect?
My guess it is that it's the latter.
Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams? I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.
And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that? Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern. I have an issue with both scenarios.
I don't understand how MU can screw up these "big" public issues every damn time....my disdain for this is definitely about a pattern ;)
-
This is a canard put up by MU PR. They needed to change the narrative, and this was the new story.
That makes no sense. There is no reason to gin something up against McAdams. He's harmless and he's old. The negative press they are getting for dismissing him has been way worse than anything he did previously.
-
Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams? I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.
And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that? Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern. I have an issue with both scenarios.
I can't argue with any of this really.
-
The story has made it to The Atlantic online.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/
-
Quite the discussion going on at The Atlantic - 1200+ comments.
Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/
-
Right, but again is there a pattern of this respect issue with McAdams? I've been aware of him over the years to generally be a curmudgeon but I'm not aware of a pattern of mistreating people.
And I know you are already on-board with this thought Sultan, but if there is a pattern why aren't they saying that? Either they are telling the truth now and this is about one incident or they are at best obfuscating and this is a pattern. I have an issue with both scenarios.
I don't understand how MU can screw up these "big" public issues every damn time....my disdain for this is definitely about a pattern ;)
The Atlantic article mentions he did this twice before in the past on his blog and both times the university politely asked him to handle more professionally in the future.
-
The Atlantic article mentions he did this twice before in the past on his blog and both times the university politely asked him to handle more professionally in the future.
Where is the article was that, couldn't find it, but admittedly I was skimming before my next meeting.
-
Where is the article was that, couldn't find it, but admittedly I was skimming before my next meeting.
Slight misquote on my part. It was in one of the comments on the story from a Kurt Akemann who pulls the info straight from Dean Holtz's letter that includes two prior incidents. Back in 2011, McAdams himself said it was something he should not do.
Kurt Akemann > DigitalDust • 13 hours ago
On page 14 of Dean Holtz's letter, he list two prior incidents where McAdams had posted the name of a female student in one of his blog articles as the result of a political disagreement and the student had then been harassed online. The second time (in 2011) he acknowledged in writing why posting names like that was not something he should do.
And then after having been warned twice and having acknowledged he had done something wrong, he proceeded to do that wrong thing again. That takes matters outside of errors in judgement and into the rhelm of malice.
-
Slight misquote on my part. It was in one of the comments on the story from a Kurt Akemann who pulls the info straight from Dean Holtz's letter that includes two prior incidents. Back in 2011, McAdams himself said it was something he should not do.
Kurt Akemann > DigitalDust • 13 hours ago
On page 14 of Dean Holtz's letter, he list two prior incidents where McAdams had posted the name of a female student in one of his blog articles as the result of a political disagreement and the student had then been harassed online. The second time (in 2011) he acknowledged in writing why posting names like that was not something he should do.
And then after having been warned twice and having acknowledged he had done something wrong, he proceeded to do that wrong thing again. That takes matters outside of errors in judgement and into the rhelm of malice.
Well, maybe that's what MU is going to lean on. If McAdams knew printing the TA's name was going to cause a virtual dust up, then you could say it was malicious.
He didn't HAVE to print her name in order to make the blog post, but he did.
-
Quite the discussion going on at The Atlantic - 1200+ comments.
Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/
Woah...now that I have read through the whole thread, Cheryl Abbate comes off pretty hardcore. Don't get me wrong -- the student who taped the conversation was tremendously rude -- but there is a serious lack of professionalism from the TA here.
I guess what is shocking to me is that Nancy Snow completed dismissed this conversation. Seeing the whole conversation is really eye-opening here. Of course, I wouldn't have taped the conversation, because that's just weird and antisocial.
Student: Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions.
Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?
Student: No, I don't.
Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?
Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.
Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...
The TA actually believes -- and feels justified in believing as an authority figure over the class -- that having the opinion that gay marriage should not be legal is homophobic and not permittable conversation in an ethics course. Again, that is shocking, considering the beliefs that the leader of the free world held only three or four years ago.
-
Lovell's first misstep, I'm really a badger fan?
Considering YTD performance under Coach, I'll let you know in a couples years
-
OK...I just fully read the letter Marquette sent to McAdams for the first time. Holy cow did McAdams f*ck this up.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1
While I did realize that he published his blog post without allowing Abatte to respond to his inquiries, I didn't realize that he published it after the student met with the Department and the College, AND after Abatte had a follow up discussion with the class specifically addressing the issue brought up by the undergraduate student. In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."
I also didn't realize that McAdams was warned twice prior about putting a student's name in his blog after the negative actions that such actions caused.
Marquette has this in the bag. McAdams might get a small settlement out of this but that's about it.
-
Well, maybe that's what MU is going to lean on. If McAdams knew printing the TA's name was going to cause a virtual dust up, then you could say it was malicious.
He didn't HAVE to print her name in order to make the blog post, but he did.
That's exactly what they are going to do. According to the letter that was sent to him, after a previous incident he "acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern."
I don't know how he "acknowledged" that at the time, but if it is in writing? He's in trouble.
-
In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."
Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.
-
Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.
Well, I think when you include things like blog posts that are long on anecdote and short on facts (that aren't fact checked anyway), it discredits why academic freedom and tenure should exist in the first place.
-
Your limited definition of academic freedom is mind boggling to me.
Publishing her name likely isn't protected by "academic freedom".
Now, the blog in general, I wouldn't protect that either, as I feel it's not well researched, or particularly well written... but I guess we could debate that.
However, the name, well, he could have done the blog without it, and obviously I'm using hindsight, but I wonder why he even included it. He didn't really need it.
-
Well, I think when you include things like blog posts that are long on anecdote and short on facts (that aren't fact checked anyway), it discredits why academic freedom and tenure should exist in the first place.
And white supremacists and groups like Westboro Baptist Church discredit why we have the freedom of speech in the first place. I think the distinction have to be more principled than "insufficient and/or inadequate development of facts."
-
OK...I just fully read the letter Marquette sent to McAdams for the first time. Holy cow did McAdams f*ck this up.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1
While I did realize that he published his blog post without allowing Abatte to respond to his inquiries, I didn't realize that he published it after the student met with the Department and the College, AND after Abatte had a follow up discussion with the class specifically addressing the issue brought up by the undergraduate student. In short, this is hardly an issue of academic freedom, because this blog post falls well short of anything that I would call "academic."
I also didn't realize that McAdams was warned twice prior about putting a student's name in his blog after the negative actions that such actions caused.
Marquette has this in the bag. McAdams might get a small settlement out of this but that's about it.
Having read it in full....I'm coming to the same conclusion. Now my only beef with MU is how they handled and messaged this. I think it was probably the right action(in absence of a similar scenario where they didn't take this action) but very poor communications.
-
And white supremacists and groups like Westboro Baptist Church discredit why we have the freedom of speech in the first place. I think the distinction have to be more principled than "insufficient and/or inadequate development of facts."
But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech. Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected. Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes
Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.
http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
Here is the third principal:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."
Was McAdams accurate? Did he exercise appropriate restraint? Did he show respect for the opinions of others? I think the answer to each of these is "No."
Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be. "A year's salary." (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)
-
But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech. Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected. Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes
Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.
http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
Here is the third principal:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."
Was McAdams accurate? Did he exercise appropriate restraint? Did he show respect for the opinions of others? I think the answer to each of these is "No."
Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be. "A year's salary." (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)
I'm not going to defend McAdams' views or manner of execution, only his right to speak his mind on an issue of campus importance without fear of retaliation from the university.
How does the bolded provision not come down on McAdams' side? Obviously there are certain things that justify revocation of tenure. I just don't think publishing a graduate student's name on a blog should be one of them.
-
But of course, there are fences around freedom of speech. Libel, threats, etc. aren't protected. Just like academic freedom and tenure aren't absolutes
Here is the AAUP's "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure," which is the bedrock of how academic freedom is applied in American universities today.
http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
Here is the third principal:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution."
Was McAdams accurate? Did he exercise appropriate restraint? Did he show respect for the opinions of others? I think the answer to each of these is "No."
Furthermore, this statement does NOT consider tenure an absolute, and has an entire section on how tenured professors can be removed for cause and what the compensation should be. "A year's salary." (Which is probably about Marquette will be offering to pay McAdams.)
http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
Except the AAUP seems to be rallying behind him
EDIT: An excerpt "This latest development is far more alarming. AAUP regulations, and Marquette’s own policies, explicitly prohibit what Marquette is now doing: punishing a professor for publicly expressing his opinions."
-
http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
Except the AAUP seems to be rallying behind him
Of course they are. It's like a union.
-
Of course they are. It's like a union.
So simultaneously they set your cited standard for handling issues of academic freedom on campus and their application of that standard to the current situation is non-credible? Interesting take.
-
I'm not going to defend McAdams' views or manner of execution, only his right to speak his mind on an issue of campus importance without fear of retaliation from the university.
How does the bolded provision not come down on McAdams' side? Obviously there are certain things that justify revocation of tenure. I just don't think publishing a graduate student's name on a blog should be one of them.
If he's done it several times, does that make a difference? If he's been warned/asked NOT to cite names, does that make a difference?
Also, why did he even publish her name?
-
If he's done it several times, does that make a difference? If he's been warned/asked NOT to cite names, does that make a difference?
Also, why did he even publish her name?
I'm fine with MU issuing a statement or some type of administrative response to address McAdams' use of the grad student's name, especially if he'd been warned in the past, I just don't think it warrants the nuclear option.
And I don't understand the people who will attribute ill intentions to McAdams in using the instructor's name, but assume MU's motivations are as pure as the driven snow.
-
I'm fine with MU issuing a statement or some type of administrative response to address McAdams' use of the grad student's name, especially if he'd been warned in the past, I just don't think it warrants the nuclear option.
And I don't understand the people who will attribute ill intentions to McAdams in using the instructor's name, but assume MU's motivations are as pure as the driven snow.
How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?
(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).
-
How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?
(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).
Let's assume that McAdams really had been warned about using students' names on his blog twice (the details on these prior incidents is unclear at this point). I think after the second or third offense, when it became obvious the issue wasn't being resolved informally, I would go through the process of adding a formal university policy on the subject. If you have a written policy putting everyone on notice, it is a lot easier sell that the termination is about violation of MU's faculty handbook and not about the underlying viewpoints.
-
That makes no sense. There is no reason to gin something up against McAdams. He's harmless and he's old. The negative press they are getting for dismissing him has been way worse than anything he did previously.
Who ever said Marquette PR was smart or effective?
-
How many times would you let him do it before you fired him?
(I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking).
According to McAdams blog, MU has been inconsistent about students names being published. In short, Marquette likes when faculty praise students by name but are reluctant to show a critical viewpoint.
Incredibly weak propaganda type coverage is embarrassing and should be discouraged, not encouraged by MU.
Blog post:
Publishing Student Names
Holz continues:
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts.
This is simply untrue. Only once did any university official (Provost John Pauly) tell us not to make any blog posts about students. (Actually, he said it was fine to commend students, but we should not criticize student activities – essentially demanding biased journalism.)
We blogged about this, and made it clear to Pauly that he had no right to tell us what to blog about. This was in 2011, and we continued to blog about student activities. Pauly let us alone, which we interpreted as meaning that he knew he had no authority to censor our blog.
Holz cited another case, but mangled the details:
In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name.
In fact, if we recall correctly, it was a faculty member who contacted us, soon after the post went up (nobody in the Communications School or at the Tribune responded to our earlier inquiries). She convinced us that the student in question was not in fact responsible for the failure of the Tribune to run the ad (contrary to what we had been told by Wisconsin Right to Life), and we were happy to delete the student’s name.
But the issue was not “mentioning students’ names,” it was the actions of this particular student. Nobody told us we could “not mention student names” in this case.
Interestingly, this past fall, Holz explicitly told us that one of our posts that mentioned two students’ names was not an issue. We had been summoned to his office on the basis of a student complaint which he would not explain. (It turned out that the president of the Palestinian Student Association claimed to feel “intimidated” when we tried to interview him about “Israeli Apartheid Week” which his organization, and three offices at Marquette, sponsored.)
We asked Holz whether the meeting was about a post we had made regarding a meeting between Marquette officials and a student group who wanted to boycott Palermo’s Pizza. We sent him the link to the post. He replied that it was “not the issue.”
So a post where we named two student activists was not an “issue.” But then all of a sudden a post naming a student instructor becomes the issue when Marquette wants to get rid of a professor who causes controversy.
-
Let's assume that McAdams really had been warned about using students' names on his blog twice (the details on these prior incidents is unclear at this point). I think after the second or third offense, when it became obvious the issue wasn't being resolved informally, I would go through the process of adding a formal university policy on the subject. If you have a written policy putting everyone on notice, it is a lot easier sell that the termination is about violation of MU's faculty handbook and not about the underlying viewpoints.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but are you saying that if it were in the handbook, you'd be 100% okay with what MU is doing?
Is MU supposed to rewrite the handbook just to include specific language for McAdams infractions? You think he's not going to freak out about that? He'll argue that they are singling him out because of his views.
If McAdams was appropriately warned (in writing) more than once, then I'm not sure what else MU can do. (SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE)
-
According to McAdams blog, MU has been inconsistent about students names being published. In short, Marquette likes when faculty praise students by name but are reluctant to show a critical viewpoint.
Incredibly weak propaganda type coverage is embarrassing and should be discouraged, not encouraged by MU.
Blog post:
Publishing Student Names
Holz continues:
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts.
This is simply untrue. Only once did any university official (Provost John Pauly) tell us not to make any blog posts about students. (Actually, he said it was fine to commend students, but we should not criticize student activities – essentially demanding biased journalism.)
We blogged about this, and made it clear to Pauly that he had no right to tell us what to blog about. This was in 2011, and we continued to blog about student activities. Pauly let us alone, which we interpreted as meaning that he knew he had no authority to censor our blog.
Holz cited another case, but mangled the details:
In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name.
In fact, if we recall correctly, it was a faculty member who contacted us, soon after the post went up (nobody in the Communications School or at the Tribune responded to our earlier inquiries). She convinced us that the student in question was not in fact responsible for the failure of the Tribune to run the ad (contrary to what we had been told by Wisconsin Right to Life), and we were happy to delete the student’s name.
But the issue was not “mentioning students’ names,” it was the actions of this particular student. Nobody told us we could “not mention student names” in this case.
Interestingly, this past fall, Holz explicitly told us that one of our posts that mentioned two students’ names was not an issue. We had been summoned to his office on the basis of a student complaint which he would not explain. (It turned out that the president of the Palestinian Student Association claimed to feel “intimidated” when we tried to interview him about “Israeli Apartheid Week” which his organization, and three offices at Marquette, sponsored.)
We asked Holz whether the meeting was about a post we had made regarding a meeting between Marquette officials and a student group who wanted to boycott Palermo’s Pizza. We sent him the link to the post. He replied that it was “not the issue.”
So a post where we named two student activists was not an “issue.” But then all of a sudden a post naming a student instructor becomes the issue when Marquette wants to get rid of a professor who causes controversy.
Ya, so for the record, I have no idea how these warnings have been issued. If they were informal, or vague, then sure, McAdams has a case. He can play the Costanza card: "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?".
If the warnings and consequences were issued clearly and and documented, then he's likely f*cked.
-
Ya, so for the record, I have no idea how these warnings have been issued. If they were informal, or vague, then sure, McAdams has a case. He can play the Costanza card: "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?".
If the warnings and consequences were issued clearly and and documented, then he's likely f*cked.
Yep. Really it is all about how McAdams "acknowledged" the issue before.
-
So simultaneously they set your cited standard for handling issues of academic freedom on campus and their application of that standard to the current situation is non-credible? Interesting take.
Well, I would argue that they are not applying their own standards correctly. But that's just my opinion.
-
I'm not trying to be a dick, but are you saying that if it were in the handbook, you'd be 100% okay with what MU is doing?
Is MU supposed to rewrite the handbook just to include specific language for McAdams infractions? You think he's not going to freak out about that? He'll argue that they are singling him out because of his views.
If McAdams was appropriately warned (in writing) more than once, then I'm not sure what else MU can do. (SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE)
Yes, if MU thinks publishing student's names is a serious enough offense to warrant dismissing a tenured professor then they should make that clear in writing for the world to see, not trot it out as some type of mysterious unwritten policy used to justify its actions ex post.
If McAdams freaks out about the written policy, whatever, its not a big deal, no one would listen to his gripes. What is a big deal is walking into a situation where it looks like the university is singling out a disliked professor for his political views.
-
Well, I would argue that they are not applying their own standards correctly. But that's just my opinion.
This is definitely part of McAdams case.
-
Yes, if MU thinks publishing student's names is a serious enough offense to warrant dismissing a tenured professor then they should make that clear in writing for the world to see, not trot it out as some type of mysterious unwritten policy used to justify its actions ex post.
If McAdams freaks out about the written policy, whatever, its not a big deal, no one would listen to his gripes. What is a big deal is walking into a situation where it looks like the university is singling out a disliked professor for his political views.
Fair enough.
I'd argue that revising the handbook would have been met with the same type of speculation about a certain professor with political views. "They are just doing this to run out McAdams" or "They just revised the handbook last year, and now they are using it to run out McAdams!"
But, your point is still well made... if it's important enough to lose your job over it, it's important enough to document it. Again, my guess is that MU THINKS they have it documented well enough.
We'll see if they do.
-
Fair enough.
I'd argue that revising the handbook would have been met with the same type of speculation about a certain professor with political views. "They are just doing this to run out McAdams" or "They just revised the handbook last year, and now they are using it to run out McAdams!"
But, your point is still well made... if it's important enough to lose your job over it, it's important enough to document it. Again, my guess is that MU THINKS they have it documented well enough.
We'll see if they do.
I think Marquette does not want to make public how some people in power feel in private. Marquette already has a broad (laughable) harassment policy. I believe that certain people at Marquette are willing to do anything to remove McAdams. Changing the rules in the middle of the game does not matter, the end justifies the means.
-
I think Marquette does not want to make public how some people in power feel in private. Marquette already has a broad (laughable) harassment policy. I believe that certain people at Marquette are willing to do anything to remove McAdams. Changing the rules in the middle of the game does not matter, the end justifies the means.
See this is where I disagree. I think Marquette wishes the entire thing never occurred.
-
See this is where I disagree. I think Marquette wishes the entire thing never occurred.
In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.
Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology
-
In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.
Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology
Where are you getting all of this? McAdams?
-
In November, a number of department chairs signed a letter denouncing McAdams actions. These individuals in particular are using this situation as an excuse to apply pressure to the university to get rid of McAdams.
Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology
As a reminder from the Washington Post....looks like most of the list.
Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.
The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).
The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.
"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."
-
Where are you getting all of this? McAdams?
http://dailynous.com/2014/11/22/letter-of-support-for-abbate-from-marquette-dept-chairs/
-
The letter is ridiculous.
-
I don't understand the problem.
They don't like how McAdams acted, and they are saying so.
What's the big deal?
-
I don't understand the problem.
They don't like how McAdams acted, and they are saying so.
What's the big deal?
And never mentioned they wanted Marquette to let him go.
-
I don't understand the problem.
They don't like how McAdams acted, and they are saying so.
What's the big deal?
Irony
-
Irony
It's not okay for McAdams to critique a TA, so it's not okay for these profs to critique McAdams?
Fine. Write them up too. If they do it on several occasions, they can be fired as well.
We all good now?
-
It's not okay for McAdams to critique a TA, so it's not okay for these profs to critique McAdams?
Fine. Write them up too. If they do it on several occasions, they can be fired as well.
We all good now?
There should be no writing up. That is the point. Marquette as an establishment has decided to over step its bounds and take improper actions (wrongfully suspending, attempting to fire) to address the situation.
-
There should be no writing up. That is the point. Marquette as an establishment has decided to over step its bounds and take improper actions (wrongfully suspending, attempting to fire) to address the situation.
Alright, well, that's the fundamental disagreement then.
I think what McAdams did was unprofessional at best. AND, if he was warned of such actions in the past, then his firing might have merit.
-
There should be no writing up. That is the point. Marquette as an establishment has decided to over step its bounds and take improper actions (wrongfully suspending, attempting to fire) to address the situation.
Well, I guess the courts are going to have to decide if it "over stepped its bounds." Even tenured professors can be fired for cause. We will see if Marquette properly documented its "cause."
-
It's been a couple of weeks.
Has MU been getting killed for this decision in the media?
(I'm honestly asking because I don't consume much news media that would cover a topic like this).
I haven't heard anything, but that doesn't mean people aren't out there talking about this.
-
No, but there has been no real movement on anything over the past couple of weeks. My guess is that his attorney is getting his stuff together to file a lawsuit of some-such and/or negotiating a buy out.
-
No, but there has been no real movement on anything over the past couple of weeks. My guess is that his attorney is getting his stuff together to file a lawsuit of some-such and/or negotiating a buy out.
Well, this will come up again, I guess I'm just checking on the potential bad PR MU could be receiving.
It will come up again, and then MU might take a little heat... but so far... haven't heard much.
-
Well, this will come up again, I guess I'm just checking on the potential bad PR MU could be receiving.
It will come up again, and then MU might take a little heat... but so far... haven't heard much.
Unless there is something going on behind the scenes...no. Marquette isn't receiving much heat from this at all. (As predicted.)
-
Unless there is something going on behind the scenes...no. Marquette isn't receiving much heat from this at all. (As predicted.)
Marquette did receive heat, as many links have already been posted when the news broke. Just because we live in a 24 hour media society that has no choice but to cover more recent stories does not mean the university did not receive flack. Since there are no new developments in the story, there is nothing to report.
-
Marquette did receive heat, as many links have already been posted when the news broke. Just because we live in a 24 hour media society that has no choice but to cover more recent stories does not mean the university did not receive flack. Since there are no new developments in the story, there is nothing to report.
I never said they didn't receive flack.
What I said at the time:
"I mean, how much of a "PR disaster" was it when Marquette withdrew the offer to the Liberal Arts dean? After about a month, people moved on. It had no real impact on donations, admissions or among the faculty. This will be about the same."
I stand by that.
-
Marquette isn't receiving much heat from this at all. (As predicted.)
You literally just said this.
Yes, we will see if Marquette donations drop off. Also, we will have to wait and see how this plays out. Marquette is attempting to keep this as quiet as possible.
-
You literally just said this.
Yes, we will see if Marquette donations drop off. Also, we will have to wait and see how this plays out. Marquette is attempting to keep this as quiet as possible.
"Not much heat" isn't "no heat."
-
"Not much heat" isn't "no heat."
If Marquette is in the national news it is almost always for something bad. They have an atrocious record of managing matters.
I'm not sure I necessarily see a difference between hot and hotter. If John McAdams is warm then Jodi O'Brien was scalding. The O'Brien abrogation was a bloody embarrassment. The McAdams affair only reinforces the negative associations outsiders must have about MU.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/education/07marquette.html?_r=0
-
O' Brien was hardly scalding. Didn't effect the university much, if at all. (Notwithstanding a NYT article from FIVE years ago.) I am certainly not saying they handled it well, but you don't understand how little this stuff ultimately matters in the long run.
Did it have substantial impacts on donations and/or enrollment? Will it in the future? If the answer is "no," then ultimately the storm was brief and passed quickly.
-
You literally just said this.
Yes, we will see if Marquette donations drop off. Also, we will have to wait and see how this plays out. Marquette is attempting to keep this as quiet as possible.
Agreed. MU is going to keep this quiet as possible.
I guess for me, there seemed to be some people shaking their fist on this board, but not much has come of it (so far).
I keep in touch with about 20-30 MU alums on a regular basis (social media, co-workers, etc.) and this topic has come up ZERO times. Now, that's an extremely anecdotal example, so I'm not saying it's scientifically significant, but I'm not sure that McAdams is really going to be an issue.
There might be some $ exchanged, there might be a court decision, but I don't know if this is the PR disaster that some feared, at least so far it isn't.
I guess we will see what happens when court documents start piling up.
-
Some (many) of you don't listen to or don't believe in the alternative media. Believe me, there is coverage. It exists, even though you don't hear it.
There may be no immediate drop off, but this stuff always comes home to roost. 10-20 years from now, when large bequeaths are considered the connection to McAdams will matter. Personally, I am reconsidering MU donations. I'm thinking of redirecting contributions to Jesuit Nation.
The O'Brien issue and the McAdams issue are from polar sides of the political universe, and both were handled terribly by Marquette. Why even pay PR flaks when they consistently screw it up.
-
Some (many) of you don't listen to or don't believe in the alternative media. Believe me, there is coverage. It exists, even though you don't hear it.
There may be no immediate drop off, but this stuff always comes home to roost. 10-20 years from now, when large bequeaths are considered the connection to McAdams will matter. Personally, I am reconsidering MU donations. I'm thinking of redirecting contributions to Jesuit Nation.
The O'Brien issue and the McAdams issue are from polar sides of the political universe, and both were handled terribly by Marquette. Why even pay PR flaks when they consistently screw it up.
Ya, see, I don't consume a lot of alternative media, so that's why i'm asking. I'm totally admit there could be an underlying wave of people talking about this. Please share any links that you can.
As far as donations, I think it's totally reasonable for people to withhold their dollars. It's the best way to make your voice heard with a private school.
20 year impact? There is no way to know for sure. I'd argue that this is a pretty small issue. Hell, I couldn't tell you about issues like this from 20 years ago, so I don't know that anybody is going to be bringing this up 20 years from now, but I fully admit that maybe I'm just don't understand the amount of outrage.
-
The average alum just doesn't care.
The average alum cares more about the Won-Loss record of the basketball team than this.
As Sultan has said several times this matters very little (if at all) in the long run despite some strong opinions here one way or the other.
-
O' Brien was hardly scalding. Didn't effect the university much, if at all. (Notwithstanding a NYT article from FIVE years ago.) I am certainly not saying they handled it well, but you don't understand how little this stuff ultimately matters in the long run.
Did it have substantial impacts on donations and/or enrollment? Will it in the future? If the answer is "no," then ultimately the storm was brief and passed quickly.
This. News moves so fast nowadays many on here aren't realizing that this is just a blip in the news cycle before everyone moves on and reads something else (if they even noticed it/remembered it at all).
-
The average alum just doesn't care.
The average alum cares more about the Won-Loss record of the basketball team than this.
I have a hard time coming up with any good reasons why I shouldn't care more about the won-loss record of the basketball team than this.
-
O' Brien was hardly scalding. Didn't effect the university much, if at all. (Notwithstanding a NYT article from FIVE years ago.) I am certainly not saying they handled it well, but you don't understand how little this stuff ultimately matters in the long run.
Did it have substantial impacts on donations and/or enrollment? Will it in the future? If the answer is "no," then ultimately the storm was brief and passed quickly.
I agree, Sultan. We see it as something national because of our association with MU.
But, really, can someone here name the other universities over the last two years that have been sued for free speech issues (I'm not saying THIS is a free speech issue - though some see it that way) and had to pay without googling it? If it isn't about someone close, the news just usually sails over our heads.
-
I agree, Sultan. We see it as something national because of our association with MU.
But, really, can someone here name the other universities over the last two years that have been sued for free speech issues (I'm not saying THIS is a free speech issue - though some see it that way) and had to pay without googling it? If it isn't about someone close, the news just usually sails over our heads.
Every university of significance has bad news of some sort. Every place has to stamp out fires from time to time. Scoopers think that Marquette is alone in this regard, and is handling everything wrong, but it's just because we are paying particular attention.
-
Every university of significance has bad news of some sort. Every place has to stamp out fires from time to time. Scoopers think that Marquette is alone in this regard, and is handling everything wrong, but it's just because we are paying particular attention.
Here's the bottom line: Marquette has made profoundly bad personnel decisions. As a member of the Marquette community I cringe as I read about these and I am genuinely embarrassed to be associated with Marquette. I believe these actions run counter to its core values as a Jesuit university. I will not contribute financially to Marquette.
And for the record: I am far more concerned that Marquette live up to its stated core values as a Jesuit university than I ever will be about the success of its athletic program(s). The basketball team could win multiple national championships which has nothing to do with its raison d'etre but will fail in its mission if it rescinds legitimate employment offers to senior administrators because of their lifestyle beliefs.
Anyone who minimizes these matters as trivial when using the gauge of national spotlight misses the issue entirely.
-
Here's the bottom line: Marquette has made profoundly bad personnel decisions. As a member of the Marquette community I cringe as I read about these and I am genuinely embarrassed to be associated with Marquette. I believe these actions run counter to its core values as a Jesuit university. I will not contribute financially to Marquette.
And for the record: I am far more concerned that Marquette live up to its stated core values as a Jesuit university than I ever will be about the success of its athletic program(s). The basketball team could win multiple national championships which has nothing to do with its raison d'etre but will fail in its mission if it rescinds legitimate employment offers to senior administrators because of their lifestyle beliefs.
Anyone who minimizes these matters as trivial when using the gauge of national spotlight misses the issue entirely.
I don't use the national spotlight as a gauge, but merely a sign that what is a small problem will not get blown up into a big one. I use substantial impact on donation and admissions...you know...revenue. And simply put, your position does not seem to be consistent with many.
-
I don't use the national spotlight as a gauge, but merely a sign that what is a small problem will not get blown up into a big one. I use substantial impact on donation and admissions...you know...revenue. And simply put, your position does not seem to be consistent with many.
Well, you did use national conversation as a measure. And you have no idea of knowing how my position sits with the overall pool other than the unreliable sample of Scoopers. But I know for a fact that the 'many' has not given Marquette anything close to the financial contributions from my wife and I, especially when you include the matching donations of our employers.
And, simply put, your index fails to address the real issue which is how are these decisions consistent with Marquette's core values and mission as a Jesuit University?
To use donations and admissions as a measure of the Jodi O'Brien decision, for instance, is grotesquely naive if not fatuous.
-
Well, you did use national conversation as a measure. And you have no idea of knowing how my position sits with the overall pool other than the unreliable sample of Scoopers. But I know for a fact that the 'many' has not given Marquette anything close to the financial contributions from my wife and I, especially when you include the matching donations of our employers.
And, simply put, your index fails to address the real issue which is how are these decisions consistent with Marquette's core values and mission as a Jesuit University?
To use donations and admissions as a measure of the Jodi O'Brien decision, for instance, is grotesquely naive if not fatuous.
I have not recently commented on whether or not the O'Brien and McAdams decisions were correct and if they are, or are not, consistent with the core values of the University.
The entire context of this discussion are not whether those decisions were "right" or "wrong," just if Marquette has been harmed PR-wise.
-
Well, you did use national conversation as a measure. And you have no idea of knowing how my position sits with the overall pool other than the unreliable sample of Scoopers. But I know for a fact that the 'many' has not given Marquette anything close to the financial contributions from my wife and I, especially when you include the matching donations of our employers.
And, simply put, your index fails to address the real issue which is how are these decisions consistent with Marquette's core values and mission as a Jesuit University?
To use donations and admissions as a measure of the Jodi O'Brien decision, for instance, is grotesquely naive if not fatuous.
I brought up the national conversation because earlier in this thread it seemed like several people were very nervous about the negative PR MU was going to receive.
I hadn't seen any negative PR, so I was asking if others had seen some, and if this was even a big story (as some people feared).
As far as your opinion on MU's core values, in this instance, I disagree with your position... but I fully support you taking your dollars and donations elsewhere. If you don't like the direction MU is heading on key issues, then the best way to show them is to take away your money.
The blessing and the curse of a private institution is that MU is beholden to what the donors want. If enough people are like Keefe, then MU will have to listen.
If only a few people feel like Keefe, then for better or worse, this simply won't be a big deal to MU. It's all about the money, ya'll.
-
I brought up the national conversation because earlier in this thread it seemed like several people were very nervous about the negative PR MU was going to receive.
I hadn't seen any negative PR, so I was asking if others had seen some, and if this was even a big story (as some people feared).
As far as your opinion on MU's core values, in this instance, I disagree with your position... but I fully support you taking your dollars and donations elsewhere. If you don't like the direction MU is heading on key issues, then the best way to show them is to take away your money.
The blessing and the curse of a private institution is that MU is beholden to what the donors want. If enough people are like Keefe, then MU will have to listen.
If only a few people feel like Keefe, then for better or worse, this simply won't be a big deal to MU. It's all about the money, ya'll.
The story was forwarded to me probably 10 times from folks out here on the west coast. People's attention spans don't stay on target for very long, but the story at least made it out this way.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Exiled-Conservative-Professors-Ostracized-Marginalized/dp/0986018325
-
http://www.amazon.com/Exiled-Conservative-Professors-Ostracized-Marginalized/dp/0986018325
I don't understand why you have to turn everything into this sort of issue. You have no idea if this is the case or not with him. He treated a student like a turd after being told not to do so previously. Has Marquette allowed a "liberal" professor to do the same thing?
-
As expected, this issue was a minor flash in the pan. No one cares anymore. The media circus rages on. McAdams had his 5 seconds of fame. Bye bye.
-
The story was forwarded to me probably 10 times from folks out here on the west coast. People's attention spans don't stay on target for very long, but the story at least made it out this way.
Obviously, the O'Brien story was big news in Seattle. It is still foremost in people's minds here if one mentions Marquette - which I do on occasion.
-
Obviously, the O'Brien story was big news in Seattle. It is still foremost in people's minds here if one mentions Marquette - which I do on occasion.
Honestly, you and Chico's must just run in a different crowd than I do.
If MU ever comes up, it's usually basketball, then maybe something about being Jesuit, then the nickname, then maybe something about McGuire.
I've never had anybody either MU affiliated or non-MU affiliated bring up something about O'Brien or McAdams.
-
The story was forwarded to me probably 10 times from folks out here on the west coast. People's attention spans don't stay on target for very long, but the story at least made it out this way.
Totally fair. From my own anecdotal experience, nobody gives a rip about McAdams either way. I didn't hear anything from anybody about it being a good or bad move.
Did you ever get to ask Lovell about it?
-
Honestly, you and Chico's must just run in a different crowd than I do.
If MU ever comes up, it's usually basketball, then maybe something about being Jesuit, then the nickname, then maybe something about McGuire.
I've never had anybody either MU affiliated or non-MU affiliated bring up something about O'Brien or McAdams.
O'Brien teaches at Seattle U. And given the context of her intersect with Marquette combined with the weltanschauung of most people here the O'Brien case was a significant issue. To this day if you mention Marquette in Seattle the first association is with the O'Brien case - and the reaction is visceral.
This isn't a matter of running in different circles. You are making the mistake of extrapolating from the Scoop sample into the world at large. The vast majority of people do not care about college basketball. Frankly, I would hope that people's immediate reaction to Marquette is not basketball for, if it is, then the University PR folks are indeed failing at a much more fundamental level.
In my world of medical professionals and technologists, when the University of Michigan is mentioned the first association made by my colleagues is that of a world class academic institution. There is never a mention of Michigan's sports enterprise. If the world at large thinks basketball when they hear Marquette then the university has a much deeper problem than mismanaging personnel matters.
-
O'Brien teaches at Seattle U. And given the context of her intersect with Marquette combined with the weltanschauung of most people here the O'Brien case was a significant issue. To this day if you mention Marquette in Seattle the first association is with the O'Brien case - and the reaction is visceral.
This isn't a matter of running in different circles. You are making the mistake of extrapolating from the Scoop sample into the world at large. The vast majority of people do not care about college basketball. Frankly, I would hope that people's immediate reaction to Marquette is not basketball for, if it is, then the University PR folks are indeed failing at a much more fundamental level.
In my world of medical professionals and technologists, when the University of Michigan is mentioned the first association made by my colleagues is that of a world class academic institution. There is never a mention of Michigan's sports enterprise. If the world at large thinks basketball when they hear Marquette then the university has a much deeper problem than mismanaging personnel matters.
You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing of Canned. Extrapolating the "visceral" reaction from the world of "medical professionals and technologists" in the Seattle area as somehow representative of Marquette's target audience is an error.
And I actually agree with you on the O'Brien issue, and said so at the time. The McAdams issue is the one I am undecided on. Not because of any political leanings, but because not enough facts have been disclosed to form an opinion.
-
O'Brien teaches at Seattle U. And given the context of her intersect with Marquette combined with the weltanschauung of most people here the O'Brien case was a significant issue. To this day if you mention Marquette in Seattle the first association is with the O'Brien case - and the reaction is visceral.
This isn't a matter of running in different circles. You are making the mistake of extrapolating from the Scoop sample into the world at large. The vast majority of people do not care about college basketball. Frankly, I would hope that people's immediate reaction to Marquette is not basketball for, if it is, then the University PR folks are indeed failing at a much more fundamental level.
In my world of medical professionals and technologists, when the University of Michigan is mentioned the first association made by my colleagues is that of a world class academic institution. There is never a mention of Michigan's sports enterprise. If the world at large thinks basketball when they hear Marquette then the university has a much deeper problem than mismanaging personnel matters.
I'm not talking about Scoop at all.
It's neither good nor bad, but in my world, people don't bring up MU's academics or it's mission statement when MU is casually mentioned. I'm not saying it's like this everybody, but just my own personal experience.
I might get "Oh, my cousin went there", or "What's with the nickname?" or "that's a pretty good school".
I do NOT get "Did you hear about how liberal the administration has become?", or "Isn't it great how liberal the administration is?"
I have a friend who went to Georgetown. I'm well aware that Georgetown is an excellent school. But, when I found out he went there, I didn't ask him about the academics. We started talking about hoops and the Big East.
Again, I don't assume it's like this for everybody. I'm merely providing my anecdotal experience. I think you just run in a different circle than I do because the stuff you are talking about literally have NEVER comes up in my day to day conversions. NEVER.
I'm realizing that maybe I'm just a meatball, so whatever, I guess I'll wear the label.
-
O'Brien teaches at Seattle U. And given the context of her intersect with Marquette combined with the weltanschauung of most people here the O'Brien case was a significant issue. To this day if you mention Marquette in Seattle the first association is with the O'Brien case - and the reaction is visceral.
This isn't a matter of running in different circles. You are making the mistake of extrapolating from the Scoop sample into the world at large. The vast majority of people do not care about college basketball. Frankly, I would hope that people's immediate reaction to Marquette is not basketball for, if it is, then the University PR folks are indeed failing at a much more fundamental level.
In my world of medical professionals and technologists, when the University of Michigan is mentioned the first association made by my colleagues is that of a world class academic institution. There is never a mention of Michigan's sports enterprise. If the world at large thinks basketball when they hear Marquette then the university has a much deeper problem than mismanaging personnel matters.
Ok, I just did a quick poll of 5 academic researchers at UW (the real one in Washington) that I know. I asked them about Marquette. They had favorable opinions about academics there. I asked if they knew about O'Brien. Not a one of them had.
I think you are making a bigger deal about this than it really is.
-
Honestly, you and Chico's must just run in a different crowd than I do.
If MU ever comes up, it's usually basketball, then maybe something about being Jesuit, then the nickname, then maybe something about McGuire.
I've never had anybody either MU affiliated or non-MU affiliated bring up something about O'Brien or McAdams.
Ummm, you forgot "Marquette...yeah, how is going to school in Michigan?"
-
You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing of Canned. Extrapolating the "visceral" reaction from the world of "medical professionals and technologists" in the Seattle area as somehow representative of Marquette's target audience is an error.
And I actually agree with you on the O'Brien issue, and said so at the time. The McAdams issue is the one I am undecided on. Not because of any political leanings, but because not enough facts have been disclosed to form an opinion.
The visceral reaction is not from my colleagues but from the the general population. Now, I will admit that the vast majority of my interactions is not drinking with commercial fishermen in Ballard but with educated professionals. But that is Marquette's target demographic - and is a mirror of the Marquette alumni: educated, articulate, informed, and discerning.
I am conflicted about the McAdams issue. I think it should have been handled much better by all parties but I believe Marquette must meet a far higher bar than McAdams. At the end of the day people will not remember John McAdams but they will remember Marquette being in the news yet again for something unseemly.
-
Ok, I just did a quick poll of 5 academic researchers at UW (the real one in Washington) that I know. I asked them about Marquette. They had favorable opinions about academics there. I asked if they knew about O'Brien. Not a one of them had.
I think you are making a bigger deal about this than it really is.
Well, I did my own completely unscientific poll of four full members of Fred Hutch, three full professors at the U Dub School of Public Health, and two former Microsoft SVPs.
What do you know about Marquette University?
- Good school: 8 of 9
- Jesuit: 5 of 9
- Jodi O'Brien: 2 of 9
- Basketball : 0 of 9
Jodi O'Brien and Marquette
- I know about that: 7 of 9
-
Well, I did my own completely unscientific poll of four full members of Fred Hutch, three full professors at the U Dub School of Public Health, and two former Microsoft SVPs.
What do you know about Marquette University?
- Good school: 8 of 9
- Jesuit: 5 of 9
- Jodi O'Brien: 2 of 9
- Basketball : 0 of 9
Jodi O'Brien and Marquette
- I know about that: 7 of 9
Hmmm... totally crazy. I don't think I know anybody who knows anything about Jodi OBrien. (I had to google it BTW).
Like I said, I guess we're just running in different social and professional circles. That's neither good nor bad. Just different.
-
Well, I did my own completely unscientific poll of four full members of Fred Hutch, three full professors at the U Dub School of Public Health, and two former Microsoft SVPs.
What do you know about Marquette University?
- Good school: 8 of 9
- Jesuit: 5 of 9
- Jodi O'Brien: 2 of 9
- Basketball : 0 of 9
Jodi O'Brien and Marquette
- I know about that: 7 of 9
My completely unscientific poll was composed of 3 members from pharmacology and 2 from Biology.
-
I don't understand why you have to turn everything into this sort of issue. You have no idea if this is the case or not with him. He treated a student like a turd after being told not to do so previously. Has Marquette allowed a "liberal" professor to do the same thing?
In my opinion it has a lot to do with the issue at hand and I'm not alone. It's an opinion, but I believe he was targeted because of his beliefs.
-
My completely unscientific poll was composed of 3 members from pharmacology and 2 from Biology.
Well, see, there you go. That's the difference between theorists and practitioners!
-
The conservative NCR weighs in:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/defending-catholic-teaching-lands-marquette-professor-in-limbo/
-
Misses the point entirely, but whatever it takes...
-
The conservative NCR weighs in:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/defending-catholic-teaching-lands-marquette-professor-in-limbo/
Thank you for sharing. I thought they were just called the NCR by the way.
Moving forward, I will now insert "The liberal NY Times" and the "liberal Washington Post" and the "liberal LA Times"
;)
-
In my opinion it has a lot to do with the issue at hand and I'm not alone. It's an opinion, but I believe he was targeted because of his beliefs.
I think he was targeted because of his entirely preventable actions. There are other conservative professors on Marquette's campus that manage to exist, mostly because they don't make repeated poor decisions about how they relate to people.
But when people like you always play the victim, you tend to see victims everywhere.
-
Thank you for sharing. I thought they were just called the NCR by the way.
Moving forward, I will now insert "The liberal NY Times" and the "liberal Washington Post" and the "liberal LA Times"
;)
Catholic periodicals are a genre distinct from the "mainstream" media. Within that subset, NCR is certainly on the conservative side of the scale. But I understand your point.
In other news, the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., died late Thursday at Holy Cross House on the campus of his beloved University of Notre Dame.
-
The conservative NCR weighs in:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/defending-catholic-teaching-lands-marquette-professor-in-limbo/
Considering the title of the article is a lie... no thanks, I won't waste my time.
-
In other news, the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., died late Thursday at Holy Cross House on the campus of his beloved University of Notre Dame.
Not sure I should go here, but
I thought more about it. I'll wait a few days.
-
Not sure I should go here, but
I thought more about it. I'll wait a few days.
He won't be any more/less offended if you wait a couple days.
-
He won't be any more/less offended if you wait a couple days.
OK. It is ND.
Are any of Fr. Hesburgh's sons still refereeing NCAA hoops? Always seemed to be one of them doing MU / ND games in the '80's.
-
Have a few good contacts at MU.
The hearings start next week.
The person really driving this is Lovell. He is VERY political/partisan, much more so than people realize, and wants McAdams gone more than anyone. MU is going to take a really hard Left turn. Where Fr Wild would try and play peacemaker, Lovell wants a war.
Donations have definitely taken a hit.
This is going to be fascinating to watch.
-
Have a few good contacts at MU.
The hearings start next week.
The person really driving this is Lovell. He is VERY political/partisan, much more so than people realize, and wants McAdams gone more than anyone. MU is going to take a really hard Left turn. Where Fr Wild would try and play peacemaker, Lovell wants a war.
Donations have definitely taken a hit.
This is going to be fascinating to watch.
And we can really trust the word of a guy who never posted here before.
-
Have a few good contacts at MU.
The hearings start next week.
The person really driving this is Lovell. He is VERY political/partisan, much more so than people realize, and wants McAdams gone more than anyone. MU is going to take a really hard Left turn. Where Fr Wild would try and play peacemaker, Lovell wants a war.
Donations have definitely taken a hit.
This is going to be fascinating to watch.
Calm down Pilarz
-
Have a few good contacts at MU.
The hearings start next week.
The person really driving this is Lovell. He is VERY political/partisan, much more so than people realize, and wants McAdams gone more than anyone. MU is going to take a really hard Left turn. Where Fr Wild would try and play peacemaker, Lovell wants a war.
Donations have definitely taken a hit.
This is going to be fascinating to watch.
And welcome Dr. McAdams!!!
-
And we can really trust the word of a guy who never posted here before.
Everyone has a first post. But, no, you don't have to trust me if you don't want. Things heat up next week.
This case was all anyone wanted to talk about today before and after the Vos/Barca debate at MU.
-
And we can really trust the word of a guy who never posted here before.
To be sure, there have been some good one-hitter-quitters in the past. Off the top of my head, Richard Shaw had good info on Shaka Smart, GoldenBoy had good info on Vander Blue leaving early for the draft.
Of course, there's been trolls here, too.
-
And we can really trust the word of a guy who never posted here before.
Aren't we the elitist?
-
Aren't we the elitist?
What does saying you wouldn't believe something a complete stranger tells you have to do with being elitist?
I suppose you act on stock tips from random people on the street.
-
I suppose you act on stock tips from random people on the street.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/blue_horseshoe_loves_anacott_steel_hat-r724bd89b93254f0793de4fb9675dc68e_v9wfy_8byvr_512.jpg)
-
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this... Guess who the advisor is to the student who audiotaped the TA??? That's right... McAdams. And I hear if you listen to the uncut audio it pretty clearly appears to be a setup. Yet, I'm sure McAdams would never orchestrate something like this to further his political agenda. The hearings should be interesting. ;)
Personally I think that student who did the audiotape should be named given what happened to the TA because what goes around comes around. Hope he enjoys all the emails
-
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this... Guess who the advisor is to the student who audiotaped the TA??? That's right... McAdams. And I hear if you listen to the uncut audio it pretty clearly appears to be a setup. Yet, I'm sure McAdams would never orchestrate something like this to further his political agenda. The hearings should be interesting. ;)
Personally I think that student who did the audiotape should be named given what happened to the TA.
It was mentioned in the article linked above. That's quite a leap you are stating to say he orchestrated it. I interpret the article to imply the student taped on his own, then took it to McAdams.
-
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this... Guess who the advisor is to the student who audiotaped the TA??? That's right... McAdams. And I hear if you listen to the uncut audio it pretty clearly appears to be a setup. Yet, I'm sure McAdams would never orchestrate something like this to further his political agenda. The hearings should be interesting. ;)
Personally I think that student who did the audiotape should be named given what happened to the TA because what goes around comes around. Hope he enjoys all the emails
Hence the firing for what appears to be just a reprimand issue?
It is interesting though that he named the TA - but not the student. It's not like he worried about crossing any lines that shouldn't be crossed.
-
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education came out with its lists for 10 worst colleges for free speech.
The McAdams brouhaha landed MU on the list.
At least we're in good company with Georgetown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/10-worst-for-free-speech_b_6769564.html
-
I think he was targeted because of his entirely preventable actions. There are other conservative professors on Marquette's campus that manage to exist, mostly because they don't make repeated poor decisions about how they relate to people.
But when people like you always play the victim, you tend to see victims everywhere.
This. I had a tax professor for 2 different courses who was very conservative and had absolutely no issue with telling the whole class about it every day. I personally didn't mind because alot of what he said I agreed with, but I'm sure there were several people who felt uncomfortable about it or did not agree.
Could this be targeting someone because of their beliefs? Sure, but I really do not see it. You just cannot do what McAdams did. Period.
-
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education came out with its lists for 10 worst colleges for free speech.
The McAdams brouhaha landed MU on the list.
At least we're in good company with Georgetown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/10-worst-for-free-speech_b_6769564.html
If you look back earlier in the thread, that is the group I predicted might come on board with McAdams in a lawsuit. It is just conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
So far, they have only targeted public universities, so I don't know if they wanna go down this road.
But for me, I don't take seriously anything that a Koch brothers funded organization has to say.
-
I think he was targeted because of his entirely preventable actions. There are other conservative professors on Marquette's campus that manage to exist, mostly because they don't make repeated poor decisions about how they relate to people.
But when people like you always play the victim, you tend to see victims everywhere.
As long as those other conservative professors play quiet, they are tolerated. That's my inference, you may wish to disagree. In my view, he was targeted for his views and how outspoken he was. Several years ago he was told to pipe down, well before any of the latest stuff. He should not have been asked to pipe down a few years ago. That is simply a wrong request on so many levels.
In my view, they waited for him to do something they thought reached a certain level where they could make a case to oust him, and that's what they are sinking their teeth into now. Whether it works or now, we shall see. If the university is proven to be correct, so be it. If the university is proven to be wrong, I hope they have to write a huge check to him and more importantly, end the chilling effect that comes with it.
Time will tell.
-
If you look back earlier in the thread, that is the group I predicted might come on board with McAdams in a lawsuit. It is just conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
So far, they have only targeted public universities, so I don't know if they wanna go down this road.
But for me, I don't take seriously anything that a Koch brothers funded organization has to say.
I'm like that with George Soros.
-
I'm like that with George Soros.
Thanks for quoting him. I guess all the donations to liberal minded entities the Kochs do he doesn't take seriously, too? (they support Pro Choice, Gay Marriage, legalizing pot, etc). LOL. The difference is, they put economic policy (budget, spending, staying within our means) at the highest priority, more than social policies. So if you are Pro Choice but want to spend like a drunken sailor vs a candidate that is pro Life but wants a balanced budget, the latter will be supported and not the former.
He has bought into the boogeyman so much he doesn't even know. Marching orders from DailyKos will do that.
-
(http://rlv.zcache.com/blue_horseshoe_loves_anacott_steel_hat-r724bd89b93254f0793de4fb9675dc68e_v9wfy_8byvr_512.jpg)
Well I know what article of clothing I'll be buying next
-
As long as those other conservative professors play quiet, they are tolerated. That's my inference, you may wish to disagree. In my view, he was targeted for his views and how outspoken he was. Several years ago he was told to pipe down, well before any of the latest stuff. He should not have been asked to pipe down a few years ago. That is simply a wrong request on so many levels.
He wasn't told to pipe down because of his views. He was told to stop mentioning the name of students in his blog. Back on April 1, 2011, he specifically said this in his blog:
"We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names."
Yet he did it again in the Abatte case. Firable offense? I have no idea. Gonna wait to see the details.
Again, when you find a liberal professor who has engaged in similar activities and has been treated differently by Marquette, *then* feel free to call bias.
-
As long as those other conservative professors play quiet, they are tolerated. That's my inference, you may wish to disagree. In my view, he was targeted for his views and how outspoken he was. Several years ago he was told to pipe down, well before any of the latest stuff. He should not have been asked to pipe down a few years ago. That is simply a wrong request on so many levels.
In my view, they waited for him to do something they thought reached a certain level where they could make a case to oust him, and that's what they are sinking their teeth into now. Whether it works or now, we shall see. If the university is proven to be correct, so be it. If the university is proven to be wrong, I hope they have to write a huge check to him and more importantly, end the chilling effect that comes with it.
Time will tell.
You're not entirely wrong, but I think inferring that somehow he was prosecuted for being conservative is a knee-jerk reaction.
We just don't know yet.
-
He wasn't told to pipe down because of his views. He was told to stop mentioning the name of students in his blog. Back on April 1, 2011, he specifically said this in his blog:
"We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names."
Yet he did it again in the Abatte case. Firable offense? I have no idea. Gonna wait to see the details.
Again, when you find a liberal professor who has engaged in similar activities and has been treated differently by Marquette, *then* feel free to call bias.
This was also the sole teacher of a class, not just a TA who helps grading papers. Can someone be fired for stating the name of a teacher? We'll see.
BTW, there was no financial offer made to McAdams to entice him to go away quietly.
And Chicos is right. There have been multiple attempts by liberal professors who lobbied to get McAdams fired, but there was never a President as political as this one to act on the complaints. A verbal scolding is what he's gotten before (rightly or wrongly).
Does anyone think Wild tries to fire McAdams if this happened on his watch?
-
This was also the sole teacher of a class, not just a TA who helps grading papers. Can someone be fired for stating the name of a teacher? We'll see.
BTW, there was no financial offer made to McAdams to entice him to go away quietly.
And Chicos is right. There have been multiple attempts by liberal professors who lobbied to get McAdams fired, but there was never a President as political as this one to act on the complaints. A verbal scolding is what he's gotten before (rightly or wrongly).
Does anyone think Wild tries to fire McAdams if this happened on his watch?
The TA is first and foremost a student. TA'ing is part of their education as a graduate student. So he did not name a teacher, he named a student.
-
This was also the sole teacher of a class, not just a TA who helps grading papers. Can someone be fired for stating the name of a teacher? We'll see.
BTW, there was no financial offer made to McAdams to entice him to go away quietly.
And Chicos is right. There have been multiple attempts by liberal professors who lobbied to get McAdams fired, but there was never a President as political as this one to act on the complaints. A verbal scolding is what he's gotten before (rightly or wrongly).
Does anyone think Wild tries to fire McAdams if this happened on his watch?
Not applicable.
Being disliked by some liberal co-workers isn't what got McAdams fired.
-
Not applicable.
Being disliked by some liberal co-workers isn't what got McAdams fired.
Right.
McAdams didn't get (potentially) fired for being a conservative or even for voicing his conservative convictions.
He got (potentially) fired for the manner in which he expressed those convictions.
-
Right.
McAdams didn't get (potentially) fired for being a conservative or even for voicing his conservative convictions.
He got (potentially) fired for the manner in which he expressed those convictions.
Correct.
Now, some will insist that McAdams was a target because of his beliefs, but I think that's just a knee-jerk reaction.
If McAdams can show that he was singled out by MU and treated unfairly, then he'll likely receive a nice check. If he can't, well, then he'll have to find another gig.
-
I'm like that with George Soros.
As you are a conservative, I wouldn't respect you if you didn't feel that way.
-
Right.
McAdams didn't get (potentially) fired for being a conservative or even for voicing his conservative convictions.
He got (potentially) fired for the manner in which he expressed those convictions.
He didn't get (potentially) fired for voicing his convictions...but was fired for writing them on a personal blog?
-
He didn't get (potentially) fired for voicing his convictions...but was fired for writing them on a personal blog?
Only guessing, but I think he may have meant outing the TA.
-
He didn't get (potentially) fired for voicing his convictions...but was fired for writing them on a personal blog?
Yes, in a manner of speaking.
As far as I'm aware, nobody ever said:
- You cannot have (insert view) of the world
- You cannot share (insert view) in your personal life
- You cannot challenge other professors or even MU using traditional academic means (published papers, articles, presentations, guest speaking, etc.)
What MU HAS said (in my opinion) is that you can't take a second hand account and run to your blog to publish names of students and TAs. It's not appropriate behavior for a senior professor. It's not researched, it's not peer reviewed, it's not even corroborated. I don't think it can simply be protected under "academic freedom". If he wants to complain to his dog about some crazy TA at MU, go ahead. Complain to his wife? Sure. Complain to his bartender? Great. But, publishing it on a public blog isn't appropriate behavior.
Now, is he being singled out because generally, he's disliked? We'll see. If MU warned him in the past about such behavior, and he continued to do it, then he likely doesn't have much a of a case. If MU was vague in the past, or have treated other staff members differently, then he has a case.
-
He wasn't told to pipe down because of his views. He was told to stop mentioning the name of students in his blog. Back on April 1, 2011, he specifically said this in his blog:
"We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names."
Yet he did it again in the Abatte case. Firable offense? I have no idea. Gonna wait to see the details.
Again, when you find a liberal professor who has engaged in similar activities and has been treated differently by Marquette, *then* feel free to call bias.
It's an opinion, I can call it a bias right now all day long until the cows come home if I wish. That is my feeling on the matter. If I read your own quote you provided, it says "will be more careful in the future about mentioning student's names". I guess I don't see where that says he will stop using student's names, but rather be more careful about it. More judicious, etc. Feel free to disagree.
-
Not applicable.
Being disliked by some liberal co-workers isn't what got McAdams fired.
Not applicable? Sorry, VERY applicable. A witch hunt is all this is.
-
The TA is first and foremost a student. TA'ing is part of their education as a graduate student. So he did not name a teacher, he named a student.
Are students paid a check to be students? That will be part of the argument. She was a TA, which is a role as a student AND teacher, for which she may be compensated in some fashion.
-
Not applicable? Sorry, VERY applicable. A witch hunt is all this is.
"The cops shot him because he's black!"
"MU fired him because he's conservative!"
Maybe just wait until we hear more actual facts? From what I have seen so far, it doesn't look like a witch hunt... but I've been wrong before.
-
Are students paid a check to be students? That will be part of the argument. She was a TA, which is a role as a student AND teacher, for which she may be compensated in some fashion.
Depends on the student. I received a check for every level of my education.
-
What MU HAS said (in my opinion) is that you can't take a second hand account and run to your blog to publish names of students and TAs. It's not appropriate behavior for a senior professor. It's not researched, it's not peer reviewed, it's not even corroborated. I don't think it can simply be protected under "academic freedom". If he wants to complain to his dog about some crazy TA at MU, go ahead. Complain to his wife? Sure. Complain to his bartender? Great. But, publishing it on a public blog isn't appropriate behavior.
Marquette has a wishy washy history in this regard. McAdams blog has published the names of students before. According to his documentation, that has NOT been an issue in the past.
-
Marquette has a wishy washy history in this regard. McAdams blog has published the names of students before. According to his documentation, that has NOT been an issue in the past.
Right, according to HIS documentation. He's going to present only what helps his case. We all would.
If he's right, he's going to win a court case and get a nice check.
If MU has a file full of written warnings with the consequences clearly spelled out, he's f*cked.
-
Right, according to HIS documentation. He's going to present only what helps his case. We all would.
If he's right, he's going to win a court case and get a nice check.
If MU has a file full of written warnings with the consequences clearly spelled out, he's f*cked.
Again, just because MU writes to McAdams, it does not mean McAdams is in the wrong. Quantity does not matter.
-
Again, just because MU writes to McAdams, it does not mean McAdams is in the wrong. Quantity does not matter.
If those writings document clear violation of University rules, the occurrences of which McAdams has not disputed, it certainly does.
-
If those writings document clear violation of University rules, the occurrences of which McAdams has not disputed, it certainly does.
From what I have read, it is Marquette habitually over stepping its authority.
-
Again, just because MU writes to McAdams, it does not mean McAdams is in the wrong. Quantity does not matter.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.
-
It boils down to this. Is the university over stepping its bounds when it contacts McAdams or not. If so, the letters are meaningless.
I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I'm simply stating that this will play out over time and more information will be released.
-
It boils down to this. Is the university over stepping its bounds when it contacts McAdams or not. If so, the letters are meaningless.
I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I'm simply stating that this will play out over time and more information will be released.
Ya, I guess this is just where we fundamentally disagree. I recall now that we've sort of had this conversation already.
I'm perfectly fine with an employer protecting itself if/when an employee might be doing damage to the brand or company. This is the real world, folks. Can't just say whatever you want and expect no consequences.
As far as McAdams "academic freedom", I don't consider his blog post based upon a second-hand, uncorroborated account from an undergraduate to be something that needs to be protected under "academic freedom".
I'm fine with McAdams challenging MU, and fine with him doing it publicly. But, there are clearly appropriate channels for that kind of thing (where he would have academic freedom). To me, this blog doesn't really meet the criteria.
Now, MU has fired him, and in order for that to "hold up", they will have to have warned him about this stuff in the past. I guess we'll wait and see if MU did that.
-
"The cops shot him because he's black!"
"MU fired him because he's conservative!"
Maybe just wait until we hear more actual facts? From what I have seen so far, it doesn't look like a witch hunt... but I've been wrong before.
Let's not be naive, Ammo. You are much too intelligent for that.
-
Let's not be naive, Ammo. You are much too intelligent for that.
We have to step outside of our own biases and at least examine the facts before having an opinion.
-
We have to step outside of our own biases and at least examine the facts before having an opinion.
the problem is, are we ever going to really have all the facts? not unless there is some sort of trial and i highly doubt that is going to happen. i'm pretty sure that it will come down to an exit strategy agreed upon by both marquette and mccadams and will probably have a gag order. marquette, i'm sure, wants this to quietly go buh-bye. if that becomes the case, it's going to leave us sluggos on the scoop postulating away without all of the facts...then what? :o
-
Depends on the student. I received a check for every level of my education.
With the understanding that check was payment for teaching services?
I would argue if a TA is being paid to teach, they are a student AND a teacher.
-
TheFire.org continues to bring attention to the situation. Marquette makes their list of 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech for 2014. MU speech code also gets a nice little write up.
Speech Code Profile:
http://www.thefire.org/speech-code-of-the-month-marquette-university/ (http://www.thefire.org/speech-code-of-the-month-marquette-university/)
2014 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech:
http://www.thefire.org/fire-announces-10-worst-colleges-free-speech-2014/ (http://www.thefire.org/fire-announces-10-worst-colleges-free-speech-2014/)
Detailed reasoning via HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/10-worst-for-free-speech_b_6769564.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/10-worst-for-free-speech_b_6769564.html)
-
With the understanding that check was payment for teaching services?
I would argue if a TA is being paid to teach, they are a student AND a teacher.
Partially, for teaching services. And at no time was I considered anything besides a student by any of the institutions I attended (and was paid to attend).
-
the problem is, are we ever going to really have all the facts? not unless there is some sort of trial and i highly doubt that is going to happen. i'm pretty sure that it will come down to an exit strategy agreed upon by both marquette and mccadams and will probably have a gag order. marquette, i'm sure, wants this to quietly go buh-bye. if that becomes the case, it's going to leave us sluggos on the scoop postulating away without all of the facts...then what? :o
It's a fair point, I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction of "They fired him because he's conservative! Down with liberals!" (shakes fist).
People will undoubtedly draw different conclusions even if we all had the facts, but let's at least try to examine the issue before we all run to our comfortable corners and resort back to cliche rants.
-
It's a fair point, I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction of "They fired him because he's conservative! Down with liberals!" (shakes fist).
People will undoubtedly draw different conclusions even if we all had the facts, but let's at least try to examine the issue before we all run to our comfortable corners and resort back to cliche rants.
People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.
-
People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.
I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.
We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.
-
I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.
We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.
Bravo! Couldn't agree more. That doesn't change the depressing fact that most people see this along ideological lines. It's either a matter of principal or not, but for most that depends on whose ox is being gored.
-
Bravo! Couldn't agree more. That doesn't change the depressing fact that most people see this along ideological lines. It's either a matter of principal or not, but for most that depends on whose ox is being gored.
Agreed.
And listen, I'm not blind to the fact that McAdams may indeed getting railroaded by MU...
HOWEVER, I'm not going to immediately jump on that train just because he likes guys with an "R" next to their name.
Also, I'm not going to act like MU should shut down anybody that has a dissenting voice. That's not in the school's mission.
-
People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.
Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage). It was all the actions thereafter.
When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure. At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.
The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked. It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us. It is strictly his actions in regards to students.
-
Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage). It was all the actions thereafter.
When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure. At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.
The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked. It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us. It is strictly his actions in regards to students.
Well, allegedly he has been warned before.
IF MU was very clear in their warnings, then they likely have a good case to remove him for cause.
If the warnings were vague, undocumented, or the punishment isn't consistent with what others have received, then he has a good case.
-
Well, allegedly he has been warned before.
IF MU was very clear in their warnings, then they likely have a good case to remove him for cause.
If the warnings were vague, undocumented, or the punishment isn't consistent with what others have received, then he has a good case.
Good point. Should definitely have qualified the previous warnings.
-
I may not speak for others, but I am in the McAdams corner (at least given my current information set) not for ideological reasons, but because I think at worst Marquette breached their contract and at best violated the norms regarding academic tenure.
Legal aspects of a potential breach of contract notwithstanding, I personally put tenure on a very, very high pedestal. I think the benefit of giving professors secured freedom of speech in both research and teaching outweigh the costs (we are currently bearing the cost in this very case, i.e., securing the hiring of a douchebag) that accompany tenure. I think revoking tenure absent a gross violation of conduct has the potential to set a bad precedent, both in principle and in practice. Practically speaking, some potential faculty member who is on the margin between choosing MU and some other school may be pushed toward the other school.
Some claim that McAdams is a victim of the ultra liberal mobs that fill the ranks of university administration as well as the faculties of the humanities and most social sciences. I disagree. Would the administration and faculty be pushing this hard if it were a liberal professor in the hot seat regarding a liberal issue? Probably not, if I am being honest. But IMO that is a moot point. A conservative going into academia knows what he is getting himself into (dealing with ultra liberals) and thus I allocate no sympathy points when he plays the victim card.
-
I may not speak for others, but I am in the McAdams corner (at least given my current information set) not for ideological reasons, but because I think at worst Marquette breached their contract and at best violated the norms regarding academic tenure.
Legal aspects of a potential breach of contract notwithstanding, I personally put tenure on a very, very high pedestal. I think the benefit of giving professors secured freedom of speech in both research and teaching outweigh the costs (we are currently bearing the cost in this very case, i.e., securing the hiring of a douchebag) that accompany tenure. I think revoking tenure absent a gross violation of conduct has the potential to set a bad precedent, both in principle and in practice. Practically speaking, some potential faculty member who is on the margin between choosing MU and some other school may be pushed toward the other school.
Some claim that McAdams is a victim of the ultra liberal mobs that fill the ranks of university administration as well as the faculties of the humanities and most social sciences. I disagree. Would the administration and faculty be pushing this hard if it were a liberal professor in the hot seat regarding a liberal issue? Probably not, if I am being honest. But IMO that is a moot point. A conservative going into academia knows what he is getting himself into (dealing with ultra liberals) and thus I allocate no sympathy points when he plays the victim card.
I guess my question would be: What does "academic freedom" cover, and how does MU (or any school for that matter) apply it?
As an example, if (insert prof) starts writing a gossip blog and airs every rumor he/she has ever hear around campus (about every prof., TA and student), is that covered?
Obviously McAdams didn't go that far, but I'm not sure that his blog should be protected the same as a research paper, or published work. But, that's a personal opinion... I have no idea on a school's official criteria.
-
I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.
We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.
Part of the facts, however, is that academia is filled with liberal ideologues and MU is no exception. This has been the case in academia for decades. Now, one can pretend that doesn't exist, but it would be ignoring facts. People can claim to not have biases, but very few can truly purge them completely.
I think ignoring these factors, to use your example, can be equally problematic. Now, this is given the facts as they are known today. Maybe more facts come out, but the biggest one is that MU has been on McAdams for a number of years and much of it has to do with his ideological positions. His blog was not well read, didn't have huge followings, but you ask enough people at MU that have been around the block and there were professors incensed at his viewpoints. You can't ignore that as part of the bigger discussion here.
-
Part of the facts, however, is that academia is filled with liberal ideologues and MU is no exception. This has been the case in academia for decades. Now, one can pretend that doesn't exist, but it would be ignoring facts. People can claim to not have biases, but very few can truly purge them completely.
I think ignoring these factors, to use your example, can be equally problematic. Now, this is given the facts as they are known today. Maybe more facts come out, but the biggest one is that MU has been on McAdams for a number of years and much of it has to do with his ideological positions. His blog was not well read, didn't have huge followings, but you ask enough people at MU that have been around the block and there were professors incensed at his viewpoints. You can't ignore that as part of the bigger discussion here.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is a "fact"?
If it is, I am honestly unaware of his persecution at MU.
-
Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage). It was all the actions thereafter.
When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure. At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.
The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked. It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us. It is strictly his actions in regards to students.
No offense intended, but an awful lot of people here are saying (and have likely convinced themselves) that politics doesn't inform their opinion. Both conservatives and liberals feel free speech and academic freedom are important. And both feel that a university and its faculty must adhere to certain rules. Two conflicting principles, how does one decide which prevails? It's not a coincidence that conservatives side with a conservative professor and liberals with the institution. Make the professor a liberal lion and positions would flip.
The larger point (and it's a valid one, I think) that conservatives make is when an institution is so tilted in one direction can it be fair to minority opinion? It doesn't matter if the McAdams narrative is a perfect fit - it's close enough, certainly closer than the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative fit the also very important and valid discussion of how people of color are treated by the police in places like Ferguson, Mo.
Predictably (and sadly) liberals don't want to deal with the fact that conservatives are marginalized on our college campuses and conservatives don't want to deal with the fact that our laws are often not fairly enforced. Rather than try to solve problems people look for anecdotal evidence (lots of that on both side of every issue) to make their points. Meanwhile, the wheels spin and people dig in...
-
No offense intended, but an awful lot of people here are saying (and have likely convinced themselves) that politics doesn't inform their opinion. Both conservatives and liberals feel free speech and academic freedom are important. And both feel that a university and its faculty must adhere to certain rules. Two conflicting principles, how does one decide which prevails? It's not a coincidence that conservatives side with a conservative professor and liberals with the institution. Make the professor a liberal lion and positions would flip.
The larger point (and it's a valid one, I think) that conservatives make is when an institution is so tilted in one direction can it be fair to minority opinion? It doesn't matter if the McAdams narrative is a perfect fit - it's close enough, certainly closer than the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative fit the also very important and valid discussion of how people of color are treated by the police in places like Ferguson, Mo.
Predictably (and sadly) liberals don't want to deal with the fact that conservatives are marginalized on our college campuses and conservatives don't want to deal with the fact that our laws are often not fairly enforced. Rather than try to solve problems people look for anecdotal evidence (lots of that on both side of every issue) to make their points. Meanwhile, the wheels spin and people dig in...
Nicely put. Your overall point is spot on.
Although, I have to add that a conservative is being marginalized on a college campus, he or she can presumably find another career.
If minorities are marginalized by law enforcement, the stakes are much higher.
-
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is a "fact"?
If it is, I am honestly unaware of his persecution at MU.
He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog. According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years. Are they afraid to speak up...yes.
There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus. He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.
My bigger question for you and others. If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race? When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?
-
He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog. According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years. Are they afraid to speak up...yes.
There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus. He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.
My bigger question for you and others. If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race? When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?
#1 That's all well and good, but again, let's not call that "factual". If MU did ask McAdams to "pull back", what were the specific instructions? What has been documented? Where did we hear about that, McAdams himself? MU? T
And again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I think it's really easy to paint a narrative that McAdams has been "oppressed" by big bad academia. It's much harder to actually take a critical look and examine the facts (or at least what we know are facts).
#2 I have no idea. I'm not resenting liberals or speaking on their behalf. That's not really my intention. I'm just interested in this specific topic because I don't like seeing people sprint out to some sort of narrative or conclusion before we start asking the correct questions.
-
He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog. According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years. Are they afraid to speak up...yes.
There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus. He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.
My bigger question for you and others. If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race? When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?
Did Chris Wolfe get the message? Crawl back in your hole and we'll grant you tenure.
-
Nicely put. Your overall point is spot on.
Although, I have to add that a conservative is being marginalized on a college campus, he or she can presumably find another career.
If minorities are marginalized by law enforcement, the stakes are much higher.
I agree. A citizenry's relationship with law enforcement is more fundamental. It's also more complicated - cops are scared and mistrustful and so are the minorities they are supposed to serve. There's more real crime and violence in minority communities so there's naturally a larger police presence. A larger police presence also results in arrests for "crimes" (drug possession, e.g.) mostly ignored in low crime areas. Lots of meat to chew on that bone, and as long as people resort to talking points in lieu of really talking progress will be painfully slow.
By contrast, the imbalance of power on college campuses is an easy problem. I'm not for quotas, and I think that academia as a career may always be one that appeals more to liberals. So be it. But the majority has the obligation to not be tyrannical. Encouraging diversity of thought/opinion should be everyone's goal in academia but when I see our best universities cancelling even mainstream center right speakers like Condi Rice it gives me pause. Are those in charge interested in the education of their students or in reinforcing their own power?
-
I agree. A citizenry's relationship with law enforcement is more fundamental. It's also more complicated - cops are scared and mistrustful and so are the minorities they are supposed to serve. There's more real crime and violence in minority communities so there's naturally a larger police presence. A larger police presence also results in arrests for "crimes" (drug possession, e.g.) mostly ignored in low crime areas. Lots of meat to chew on that bone, and as long as people resort to talking points in lieu of really talking progress will be painfully slow.
By contrast, the imbalance of power on college campuses is an easy problem. I'm not for quotas, and I think that academia as a career may always be one that appeals more to liberals. So be it. But the majority has the obligation to not be tyrannical. Encouraging diversity of thought/opinion should be everyone's goal in academia but when I see our best universities cancelling even mainstream center right speakers like Condi Rice it gives me pause. Are those in charge interested in the education of their students or in reinforcing their own power?
Agree 100% with everything you've said.
-
I agree. A citizenry's relationship with law enforcement is more fundamental. It's also more complicated - cops are scared and mistrustful and so are the minorities they are supposed to serve. There's more real crime and violence in minority communities so there's naturally a larger police presence. A larger police presence also results in arrests for "crimes" (drug possession, e.g.) mostly ignored in low crime areas. Lots of meat to chew on that bone, and as long as people resort to talking points in lieu of really talking progress will be painfully slow.
By contrast, the imbalance of power on college campuses is an easy problem. I'm not for quotas, and I think that academia as a career may always be one that appeals more to liberals. So be it. But the majority has the obligation to not be tyrannical. Encouraging diversity of thought/opinion should be everyone's goal in academia but when I see our best universities cancelling even mainstream center right speakers like Condi Rice it gives me pause. Are those in charge interested in the education of their students or in reinforcing their own power?
Spot on Lenny. Liberals on campus use their power in the same way that they claim conservatives use power against "the weak". Power corrupts, no matter who holds it.
-
I agree. A citizenry's relationship with law enforcement is more fundamental. It's also more complicated - cops are scared and mistrustful and so are the minorities they are supposed to serve. There's more real crime and violence in minority communities so there's naturally a larger police presence. A larger police presence also results in arrests for "crimes" (drug possession, e.g.) mostly ignored in low crime areas. Lots of meat to chew on that bone, and as long as people resort to talking points in lieu of really talking progress will be painfully slow.
By contrast, the imbalance of power on college campuses is an easy problem. I'm not for quotas, and I think that academia as a career may always be one that appeals more to liberals. So be it. But the majority has the obligation to not be tyrannical. Encouraging diversity of thought/opinion should be everyone's goal in academia but when I see our best universities cancelling even mainstream center right speakers like Condi Rice it gives me pause. Are those in charge interested in the education of their students or in reinforcing their own power?
I agree with this.
Spot on Lenny. Liberals on campus use their power in the same way that they claim conservatives use power against "the weak". Power corrupts, no matter who holds it.
*Some* liberals on *some* campuses. Let's not make it a blanket statement. And no...power doesn't always corrupt.
-
Nicely put. Your overall point is spot on.
Although, I have to add that a conservative is being marginalized on a college campus, he or she can presumably find another career.
Presumably, than, women, minorities, LGBT, any other oppressed group could find another career too?
-
Presumably, than, women, minorities, LGBT, any other oppressed group could find another career too?
Where is the other part? Isn't there a Q on that acronym now too?
-
I agree. A citizenry's relationship with law enforcement is more fundamental. It's also more complicated - cops are scared and mistrustful and so are the minorities they are supposed to serve. There's more real crime and violence in minority communities so there's naturally a larger police presence. A larger police presence also results in arrests for "crimes" (drug possession, e.g.) mostly ignored in low crime areas. Lots of meat to chew on that bone, and as long as people resort to talking points in lieu of really talking progress will be painfully slow.
By contrast, the imbalance of power on college campuses is an easy problem. I'm not for quotas, and I think that academia as a career may always be one that appeals more to liberals. So be it. But the majority has the obligation to not be tyrannical. Encouraging diversity of thought/opinion should be everyone's goal in academia but when I see our best universities cancelling even mainstream center right speakers like Condi Rice it gives me pause. Are those in charge interested in the education of their students or in reinforcing their own power?
dynamite! lenny's quote here should be used as a reference and focal point to any argument regarding the liberal vs. conservative imbalance on college campuses. i had the good fortune of seeing/hearing condi rice speak at a convention. wow! she has so much to offer to people of ALL walks. her talk wasn't political at all. it was about rising above the fray and empowering yourself. we all can be what we want to be. check out her history and you'll see that she is living proof and she definitely walked the walk. she talks about succeeding in life and by the way, she became one of the first 2 women to become members of augusta national, her name comes up often to be the next commisioner of the nfl...
-
dynamite! lenny's quote here should be used as a reference and focal point to any argument regarding the liberal vs. conservative imbalance on college campuses. i had the good fortune of seeing/hearing condi rice speak at a convention. wow! she has so much to offer to people of ALL walks. her talk wasn't political at all. it was about rising above the fray and empowering yourself. we all can be what we want to be. check out her history and you'll see that she is living proof and she definitely walked the walk. she talks about succeeding in life and by the way, she became one of the first 2 women to become members of augusta national, her name comes up often to be the next commisioner of the nfl...
Is the "shift" key broken on your device?
-
Is the "shift" key broken on your device?
It's called a choice. Many may not like it, but I am really amazed by how much it bothers people. I see my iPad is correcting it for me but if I'm on one of my other devices, I'm just another lazy slob I guess and I just choose to type away. It's ok though. If people want to judge me and my opinions by the type and scrambling nature of my posts...that's ok too but you all are gonna miss a lot of good stuff ;D
-
dynamite! lenny's quote here should be used as a reference and focal point to any argument regarding the liberal vs. conservative imbalance on college campuses. i had the good fortune of seeing/hearing condi rice speak at a convention. wow! she has so much to offer to people of ALL walks. her talk wasn't political at all. it was about rising above the fray and empowering yourself. we all can be what we want to be. check out her history and you'll see that she is living proof and she definitely walked the walk. she talks about succeeding in life and by the way, she became one of the first 2 women to become members of augusta national, her name comes up often to be the next commisioner of the nfl...
Remember, those calling for her talk to be cancelled were the students not the professors/administration. It is their commencement, the person should not be polarizing, she will forever be polarizing to some because of her involvement in the Iraq War and the fictitious WMDs.
College campuses may have more liberal faculty, but they are far from oppressive. They may disagree with the conservative faculty, but they do not try to repress them in greater than 99% of cases.
In fact, the amount of oppression from the right (despite being a minority) is far stronger. There are a lot of faculty living in the closet, because of fear of firing. The number of faculty in this category far outnumber, those whose ideas are marginalized on the right.
-
Remember, those calling for her talk to be cancelled were the students not the professors/administration. It is their commencement, the person should not be polarizing, she will forever be polarizing to some because of her involvement in the Iraq War and the fictitious WMDs.
College campuses may have more liberal faculty, but they are far from oppressive. They may disagree with the conservative faculty, but they do not try to repress them in greater than 99% of cases.
In fact, the amount of oppression from the right (despite being a minority) is far stronger. There are a lot of faculty living in the closet, because of fear of firing. The number of faculty in this category far outnumber, those whose ideas are marginalized on the right.
Whoops.
http://www.nj.com/education/2014/05/how_condoleezza_rices_rutgers_commencement_appearance_fell_apart_in_88_days.html
"A few weeks later, petitions objecting to Rice's selection began circulating around campus. Then, the Rutgers faculty council on the New Brunswick campus filed the first formal objection to Rice's selection when they passed a resolution calling on the school to rescind her invitation."
Here's Bloomberg lamenting the oppression
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/29/bloomberg-commencemnt-censorship-education/
And here's faculty protesting an institute named after a (fiscally-)conservative scholar, a Nobel laureate no less
http://www.thefire.org/u-of-chicago-faculty-members-oppose-milton-friedman-institute/
-
Remember, those calling for her talk to be cancelled were the students not the professors/administration. It is their commencement, the person should not be polarizing, she will forever be polarizing to some because of her involvement in the Iraq War and the fictitious WMDs.
College campuses may have more liberal faculty, but they are far from oppressive. They may disagree with the conservative faculty, but they do not try to repress them in greater than 99% of cases.
In fact, the amount of oppression from the right (despite being a minority) is far stronger. There are a lot of faculty living in the closet, because of fear of firing. The number of faculty in this category far outnumber, those whose ideas are marginalized on the right.
Can you quantify the "FACT" you stated at the end.
Secondly, at college commencements over the last 15 years, the number of times faculty have turned their backs on a conservative speaker vs a liberal speaker during the speech? Is it 50 to 0? 100 to 0? Honestly cannot recall ever a liberal having FACULTY turn their backs on them. Some in the crowd might, but not the faculty.
-
Can you quantify the "FACT" you stated at the end.
Secondly, at college commencements over the last 15 years, the number of times faculty have turned their backs on a conservative speaker vs a liberal speaker during the speech? Is it 50 to 0? 100 to 0? Honestly cannot recall ever a liberal having FACULTY turn their backs on them. Some in the crowd might, but not the faculty.
Invitation left unanswered for days forever.
-
Can you quantify the "FACT" you stated at the end.
Secondly, at college commencements over the last 15 years, the number of times faculty have turned their backs on a conservative speaker vs a liberal speaker during the speech? Is it 50 to 0? 100 to 0? Honestly cannot recall ever a liberal having FACULTY turn their backs on them. Some in the crowd might, but not the faculty.
The phrase "in fact" is an abbreviation for "in point of fact" it is used to counter an assertion. The assertion being that liberals repress conservatives on campuses. I do know about a dozen professors who hide the fact that they are gay from coworkers/colleagues, because they may lose their jobs (if untenured) for being gay and are ostracized by the right on campuses. Even after tenure, they still hide it, because ones that have come out have been attacked by the minority (the right).
As for the turning their back. It is a form of protest. The right just typically doesn't come to the liberal talks at all.
-
The phrase "in fact" is an abbreviation for "in point of fact" it is used to counter an assertion. The assertion being that liberals repress conservatives on campuses. I do know about a dozen professors who hide the fact that they are gay from coworkers/colleagues, because they may lose their jobs (if untenured) for being gay and are ostracized by the right on campuses. Even after tenure, they still hide it, because ones that have come out have been attacked by the minority (the right).
As for the turning their back. It is a form of protest. The right just typically doesn't come to the liberal talks at all.
Conservatives don't attend college commencements when liberals are speaking?
-
Conservatives don't attend college commencements when liberals are speaking?
Some don't. Do all liberals turn their backs on speakers?
-
Some don't. Do all liberals turn their backs on speakers?
Some liberals do for conservative speakers. I cannot think of one example EVER where the opposite happened. That's why I asked.
I can name literally dozens if not more where liberals have turned their backs on conservative speakers in "protest", but not the reverse. Why do you think that is?
As for your story about gay out of the closet professors hiding, that seems odd to me. Now, granted that I live in So. Cal where coming out gay has been going on for 30 years and is no big deal, but with liberals dominating college professorships and employment in general, I find this odd unless your gay professor friends are teaching at a strongly conservative college. I don't know and everyone has their reasons for staying in the closet, etc. I hope your friends find the courage to do so, they are professors after all and likely have tenure, plus they would be protected against any harassment. They shouldn't fear anything IMO, but if they do I hope they find the strength to come forward. The law is on their side and more than likely based on the profession they chose, they have allies everywhere. Plus, populace is overwhelmingly accepting of gay people, even a majority supports gay marriage in this country. My two cents.
-
This article struck me as apropos for this thread: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?referrer=&_r=0
-
Pony up, Marquette
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-steven-salaita-settlement-met-20151112-story.html
The University of Illinois' decision last year to revoke a job offer to controversial professor Steven Salaita will cost more than $2 million, including an $875,000 settlement that trustees approved Thursday.
Salaita, who lost a tenured faculty position after posting a string of anti-Israel comments on social media, will get $600,000 in the deal in exchange for dropping two lawsuits against the university and agreeing he will never work at U. of I.
Salaita's attorneys will get $275,000.
The settlement — to be paid out within 30 days — is on top of the $1.3 million in legal fees the university has spent during the past 14 months on Salaita-related issues, including a federal suit brought by Salaita that alleged breach of contract and violation of his free speech rights.
-
We will see, but McAdams wasn't a free speech or freedom of expression case, but a workplace conduct case. Different set of standards.
-
Pony up, Marquette
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-steven-salaita-settlement-met-20151112-story.html
The University of Illinois' decision last year to revoke a job offer to controversial professor Steven Salaita will cost more than $2 million, including an $875,000 settlement that trustees approved Thursday.
Salaita, who lost a tenured faculty position after posting a string of anti-Israel comments on social media, will get $600,000 in the deal in exchange for dropping two lawsuits against the university and agreeing he will never work at U. of I.
Salaita's attorneys will get $275,000.
The settlement — to be paid out within 30 days — is on top of the $1.3 million in legal fees the university has spent during the past 14 months on Salaita-related issues, including a federal suit brought by Salaita that alleged breach of contract and violation of his free speech rights.
Would be money well spent in McAdams' case
-
We will see, but McAdams wasn't a free speech or freedom of expression case, but a workplace conduct case. Different set of standards.
Well, that's the narrative Marquette is spinning.
-
Well, that's the narrative Marquette is spinning.
By "narrative," you mean "legal position," then yes. Whether or not it is a legal position that is viable, time will tell. But that makes it different than the UofI case.
-
Is the "shift" key broken on your device?
The first challenge to Rocket's unique writing style!
Chick is like the shepherds who found the Dead Sea Scrolls!
-
The first challenge to Rocket's unique writing style!
Chick is like the shepherds who found the Dead Sea Scrolls!
NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
-
Pony up, Marquette
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-steven-salaita-settlement-met-20151112-story.html
The University of Illinois' decision last year to revoke a job offer to controversial professor Steven Salaita will cost more than $2 million, including an $875,000 settlement that trustees approved Thursday.
Salaita, who lost a tenured faculty position after posting a string of anti-Israel comments on social media, will get $600,000 in the deal in exchange for dropping two lawsuits against the university and agreeing he will never work at U. of I.
Salaita's attorneys will get $275,000.
The settlement — to be paid out within 30 days — is on top of the $1.3 million in legal fees the university has spent during the past 14 months on Salaita-related issues, including a federal suit brought by Salaita that alleged breach of contract and violation of his free speech rights.
I would love to see it.
In fact, I'm thinking about going to campus next week and holding up some signs about giving everyone some space, making sure everyone is treated equally. MU deserves to get crap hammered on this one.
-
From what I've heard, McAdams is much more interested in going through with lawsuits than taking any settlement offers if he's fired.
MU could win a lower court ruling and even an appeals court ruling, but they would be in a world of hurt if this case is taken up (more like when) by the WI Supreme Court.
-
of course MU is going to argue workplace insubordination, etc. that's all they have. prof. mccadams has nothing to lose arguing what really happened-freedom of speech-regardless of what the circumstances were. MU would be better off settling this somehow to the prof's liking as the "free pub" MU is going to get may not be exactly the kind they should want. unless MU wants to become the berkeley of the midwest, they might want to close the doors and smok'em peace pipe with prof. mccadams
-
I hope McAdams sues and wins.
-
I hope McAdams sues and wins.
Agreed. Although I feel that those that believe MU somehow did something noble will never understand.
-
Agreed. Although I feel that those that believe MU somehow did something noble will never understand.
I find your opinion interesting.
Do you feel it is OK for a professor to publicly try to humiliate a student? On a public blog for anyone in the country to read? to open this student up to all kind of vile threats?
I don't care - and I don't think MU cared whether he was conservative. Certainly he had been writing his blog from a far right perspective for a long time and MU never tried to fire him.
Just wondering why you feel MU should pay. And, I don't mean for this post to criticize your opinion.
-
I would love to see it.
In fact, I'm thinking about going to campus next week and holding up some signs about giving everyone some space, making sure everyone is treated equally. MU deserves to get crap hammered on this one.
absolutely-unless they get a little spanking here, who's next? the libbys are all screaming workplace violence, as opposed to freedom of speech. well wait until one of theirs get's the ole marquette hammer. careful what they wish for. if they want to split hairs, mccadams will be going for the short ones
-
I find your opinion interesting.
Do you feel it is OK for a professor to publicly try to humiliate a student? On a public blog for anyone in the country to read? to open this student up to all kind of vile threats?
I don't care - and I don't think MU cared whether he was conservative. Certainly he had been writing his blog from a far right perspective for a long time and MU never tried to fire him.
Just wondering why you feel MU should pay. And, I don't mean for this post to criticize your opinion.
Well said, Brandy. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
-
I hope McAdams sues and wins.
I hope he sues, loses and is ordered to pay Marquette's legal fees.
He's a bully.
-
Well said, Brandy. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
You just haven't learned to separate my posts yet. Whether it is an honest discussion or whether I'm responding viscerally to what I feel is someone deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
I have no problem with anyone supporting McAdams as long as they do so honestly. Certainly, their opinion is as valid as mine.
-
We will see, but McAdams wasn't a free speech or freedom of expression case, but a workplace conduct case. Different set of standards.
Idk about that.
It sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract case (same as Salaita's UIUC case).
-
Idk about that.
It sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract case (same as Salaita's UIUC case).
What contract was breached in the McAdams case?
-
Well said, Brandy. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
If only what Brandx said were true...if only....but alas, that's not the case.
-
If only what Brandx said were true...if only....but alas, that's not the case.
God this post is rich with irony. Delicious, delicious irony.
-
I find your opinion interesting.
Do you feel it is OK for a professor to publicly try to humiliate a student? On a public blog for anyone in the country to read? to open this student up to all kind of vile threats?
I don't care - and I don't think MU cared whether he was conservative. Certainly he had been writing his blog from a far right perspective for a long time and MU never tried to fire him.
Just wondering why you feel MU should pay. And, I don't mean for this post to criticize your opinion.
Marquette found McAdams annoying but every campus has professors like that. Not every professor commits repeated workplace violations however. That's the difference. That doesn't make it "noble." That's called running a professional organization.
If you can find one instance where a liberal professor did the similar things to McAdams and wasn't fired, then people can whine about bias...and I will be right there to support them.
-
When I started this thread it said update on professor mccrabby pants. The PC editing in this world has gotten out of control!
-
God this post is rich with irony. Delicious, delicious irony.
When MU loses this one, I know it's going to sting you...it's ok, you still have friends here to console you.
-
What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings. For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue. I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels. I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time. And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election. Crazy world.
-
What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings. For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue. I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels. I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time. And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election. Crazy world.
The problem I have with Brand's comments and others....for him to say that MU didn't care that he was conservative is just a bald face pile of fecal matter. They had been on him in the past for his views, long before this "incident". Asked him to tone it down, etc. I'm sure they asked liberal professors to tone down their beliefs with their postings. ::) For him to claim they didn't care is nonsense.
As for the student angle and the fact he put it on a blog for all the world to see.....come on. Hyperbole big time on the blog front. Yes, technically all the world can read MUScoop, too.....technically something written on a piece of paper in a notebook could be scanned and uploaded for all the world to see....technically someone could record someone saying something and put it on Facebook, etc, etc.
She was a teacher and a student, for some reason the whole "teacher" part is left off constantly.
We'll see how it plays out, but this smells like politics from day one.
-
The problem I have with Brand's comments and others....for him to say that MU didn't care that he was conservative is just a bald face pile of fecal matter. They had been on him in the past for his views, long before this "incident". Asked him to tone it down, etc. I'm sure they asked liberal professors to tone down their beliefs with their postings. ::)
Not a professor, but they fired Susannah Bartlow in about two days after the Shakur mural controversy. And deservedly so.
The idea that they came down on McAdams because he is conservative, despite the fact that there are PLENTY of conservative professors on campus that have no problems functioning in the workplace, is foolhardy. And it reeks of the conservative victimization mentality that I find so amusing. (And of course, what Chicos' loves to revel in.)
-
The problem I have with Brand's comments and others....for him to say that MU didn't care that he was conservative is just a bald face pile of fecal matter. They had been on him in the past for his views, long before this "incident". Asked him to tone it down, etc. I'm sure they asked liberal professors to tone down their beliefs with their postings. ::) For him to claim they didn't care is nonsense.
Could you point out some of these instances in which they had been "on him" for his views? Not the manner in which he expressed his views, but the views themselves. And, since it was his views, and not the manner in which he expressed them, where are the instances of the administration being "on" other faculty with conservative views ?
She was a teacher and a student, for some reason the whole "teacher" part is left off constantly.
At Marquette, just like every other school, grad students who teach classes are considered students. This weird defense that she was some sort of hybrid is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid dealing with the reality of the situation. She was a student. End of story.
-
What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings. For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue. I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels. I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time. And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election. Crazy world.
You're right, Glow. There definitely are cases where people are victimized because of political leanings here in this country. I just don't think this is one of them.
I believe there should be professors of all stripes on campus. Despite our different political beliefs, I'm guessing you feel the same way.
-
You're right, Glow. There definitely are cases where people are victimized because of political leanings here in this country. I just don't think this is one of them.
I believe there should be professors of all stripes on campus. Despite our different political beliefs, I'm guessing you feel the same way.
My favorite professor at Marquette put pictures of aborted fetuses on his office door.
-
What contract was breached in the McAdams case?
He was a tenured professor
-
He was a tenured professor
Tenured professors can be fired.
http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm
"Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year."
-
What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings. For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue. I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels. I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time. And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election. Crazy world.
I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.
I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process. Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence. Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive. The trial has been tainted. The guy will not have a fair trial. He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty. Back to McAdams. He violated social norms. He's a d-bag and a bad colleague. Fine. But such is the cost of tenure. You either bear that cost or you don't.
-
I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.
I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process. Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence. Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive. The trial has been tainted. The guy will not have a fair trial. He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty. Back to McAdams. He violated social norms. He's a d-bag and a bad colleague. Fine. But such is the cost of tenure. You either bear that cost or you don't.
I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.
-
I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican so I suppose that i have more in common with McAdams than I would with, say, Bernie Sanders, but for me this is 100% about upholding the standards of academic tenure.
I make the analogy to the criminal judicial process. Suppose that the police illegally obtained some incriminating evidence. Suppose that the evidence is both damning and conclusive. The trial has been tainted. The guy will not have a fair trial. He needs to be set free, even if we all know he is guilty. Back to McAdams. He violated social norms. He's a d-bag and a bad colleague. Fine. But such is the cost of tenure. You either bear that cost or you don't.
You don't understand tenure. Tenure just means you can't get fired for anything related to your academic position or for academic freedom reasons. Which is why MU couldn't drop MacGuire.
-
Tenured professors can be fired.
http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm
"Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year."
I'm well aware that tenured faculty can be fired. Tenure essentially protects those who have it from the typical 'fire-at-will' employment policy. Typically the firing happens for very egregious behavior or outright criminal behavior. There are exceptions, of course. And those exceptions are lamentable. I believe McAdams's case to be one of those exceptions.
-
I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.
I'm going to bite the bullet here and say "yes, that is what I am arguing." But this bullet isn't as big as it sounds. And for the sake of candor, I admit that there is some line blurring, even for someone as staunchly in favor of academic freedom as I am.
I'll give you an example. Just this past spring semester, there was a very controversial professor who was hired by Boston University. She accepted a tenure-track position there. However, before her official start date, she was on Twitter, tweeting about how "white men are the problem in today's society" and other borderline racist comments. Her Twitter feed was rife with comments deploring her tweets. Some claimed "how can this woman be a fair grader towards white male students?!?!" Accordingly, many called for BU to rescind the offer. (BU did not, and donations took a hit).
While I sypmathize with those students' concerns at a personal level, and even at a professional level, I nevertheless feel that she should have been given the benefit of the doubt. I sided with her, despite finding her comments outlandish. In the name of academic freedom.
Here's another example of a prof saying some borderline racist stuff. A Duke poli sci professor was commenting in the comments section of the NYT. He was saying some stuff that was racially insensitive: 'the blacks have weird names and don't want to assimilate...unlike the Asians, who easily conform'.
These racially insensitive comments have NOTHING to do with his research expertise (which is I believe about Eastern European politics). Duke's response? Duke sent out an official presser denouncing the comments. I think it may have even suspended him. But they did not fire him. I think keeping him employed was a good choice.
Everything academics say/write can be considered academic freedom, as crazy as that may sound. A priest does not cease being a priest when he leaves the parish. A cop who is off-duty is still a cop. Mayor Barrett is still the mayor when he is not at City Hall.
EDIT: You said without consequence and so I want to clarify. Without consequence from the employer (university) yes. Without consequence from the government no. In other words, if McAdams was guilty of criminal harassment, e.g., stalking, then I would not hold it against MU for making sure that there is a consequence.
-
Everything academics say/write can be considered academic freedom, as crazy as that may sound. A priest does not cease being a priest when he leaves the parish. A cop who is off-duty is still a cop. Mayor Barrett is still the mayor when he is not at City Hall.
I disagree with some of what you wrote, in that I don't think anything an academic spouts is by definition academic freedom. For example, if an electrical engineering prof were to make some racially offensive and inaccurate comments about the genetic makeup of Asians ... that's not academic freedom because it's well outside the prof's academic realm.
All that said, McAdams' case - at least from the argument MU has presented - is not about the content of his remarks, but his decision to "out" the student who was target of his remarks, after having been warned repeatedly in the past about naming students in that context. Just my opinion, but he could have made his point just as effectively without naming the student and exposing her to threats and ridicule.
-
You don't understand tenure. Tenure just means you can't get fired for anything related to your academic position or for academic freedom reasons. Which is why MU couldn't drop MacGuire.
You understand tenure better than the average Joe and I understand it better than you. That's why you think that I don't understand it.
Tenure is two things. First, it is a contractual agreement (sometimes tacit), enforceable by the courts of employment tort law.
Second, it is a norm within the academic community, "enforced" by academics, potential academics, and anyone else who cares about upholding the institution of academic freedom at all costs.
-
I disagree with some of what you wrote, in that I don't think anything an academic spouts is by definition academic freedom. For example, if an electrical engineering prof were to make some racially offensive and inaccurate comments about the genetic makeup of Asians ... that's not academic freedom because it's well outside the prof's academic realm.
All that said, McAdams' case - at least from the argument MU has presented - is not about the content of his remarks, but his decision to "out" the student who was target of his remarks, after having been warned repeatedly in the past about naming students in that context. Just my opinion, but he could have made his point just as effectively without naming the student and exposing her to threats and ridicule.
To the extent that I can be both respectful and in staunch disagreement, I do not agree. There are scholars who work in completely separate fields from their doctoral training and field of academic employment.
Noam Chomsky immediately comes to mind. He is a a world-renowned scholar in linguistics. A niche field, to be sure. But another fact about Chomsky is that he is the most cited person currently living. How can both of these facts be true? Chomsky is most commonly known for his political commentary. (I would actually call them rants.) He goes on and on and on and on about how power corrupts, about how the US government did XYZ in Chile, Nicaragua, etc. He blasts the mainstream media, etc. Listen to his rants on YouTube.
Then, after you listen to his YouTube rants, go to Wikipedia and read about his contribution to linguistics and the philosophy of language. They are COMPLETELY unrelated. His linguistic genius is about how syntactic structures are created and understood by the human mind.
Academic freedom is much broader than 'biology profs can only work/speak about biology and maybe, just maybe closely related fields, but that's it'.
-
I presume you're not arguing that a person with tenure should be able to do or say anything, even when unrelated to his academic position, and not face a consequence.
So, I'm curious, where do you draw that line?
I think for most of us, the debate has been whether McAdams crossed the line between legitimate academic expression and harassment. It seems as if you're almost arguing that tenure means there is no line.
Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?
Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.
Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.
-
You're right, Glow. There definitely are cases where people are victimized because of political leanings here in this country. I just don't think this is one of them.
I believe there should be professors of all stripes on campus. Despite our different political beliefs, I'm guessing you feel the same way.
I very much do. And I'm no RINO if you put me to the purity test.
-
Academic freedom is much broader than 'biology profs can only work/speak about biology and maybe, just maybe closely related fields, but that's it'.
1. I know who Chomsky is.
2. The statement quoted above is not close to what I've said. Anyone is free to say anything, regardless of their particular field. But having the right to say something and claiming that academic freedom protects you from any consequence of it aren't the same thing.
Even the president of the American Association of University Professors - which, literally, has written the book on what academic freedom means - doesn't go as far as you.
Some excerpts:
1. Academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.
6. Academic freedom does not give students or faculty the right to ignore college or university regulations, though it does give faculty and students the right to criticize regulations they believe are unfair.
7. Academic freedom does not protect students or faculty from disciplinary action, but it does require that they receive fair treatment and due process.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/nelson_on_academic_freedom
-
Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?
Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.
Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.
Well, free speech is not an absolute. You already know that.
And the Constitutional right to free speech has nothing to do with (and has no authority over) an employee-employer relationship. It's about the relationship between the governor and the governed. Which you also know already.
To answer your questions:
1. No.
2. No.
-
Wow. I find this surreal. So my Senior son has actually done work on behalf of the university that probably most of you have seen. Does 'academic freedom' give a guy like McAdams the right to disparage it publicly (not sure why he would but for the sake of argument)? So there's no limit or line? Sorry, not in my book.
-
What I find somewhat interesting about this thread is that the usual suspects are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle depending on their view of John's political leanings. For me, it really is a workplace conduct issue. I happen to think that the former instructor was a closed minded, flaming left b*tch, that the student used unfair and destructive means to 'out' her, but that John needed to use proper channels. I also find it somewhat interesting that some here think they know the political leanings of MU's Senior Leadership at the time. And all that said, I find myself on the same side of the fence as brandx despite knowing that he and I have probably never voted for the same person in an election. Crazy world.
Well said.
This is not about McAdams' political views.
It is about professional conduct. Period.
-
Should kids at Yale dressed up in KKK sheets for Halloween get kicked out of school? Should the Masters of Silliman College at Yale lose their jobs for defending the rights of kids to dress up in KKK sheets?
Free Speech is an absolute. One might not agree with a KKK costume or the American Nazi Party marching through Skokie but those who choose these expressions have every right to do so.
Marquette chose to play on a very slippery slope.
Difference here is that it is a professor harassing a student on a blog.
-
Well said.
This is not about McAdams' political views.
It is about professional conduct. Period.
period?? do you think MU will admit otherwise? publicly, they need a legal leg to stand on. it's all very logical and easy for them to take the workplace stance, but something still doesn't smell right, especially in the academic setting and the precedent that has been set. what precedent you ask? the one that liberals have set for most universities and now they have to try to blow past it-the fact that liberals own the field of academia. if it were a more even playing field, it wouldn't be this difficult or in other words, people wouldn't be as skeptical.
-
You understand tenure better than the average Joe and I understand it better than you. That's why you think that I don't understand it.
Tenure is two things. First, it is a contractual agreement (sometimes tacit), enforceable by the courts of employment tort law.
Second, it is a norm within the academic community, "enforced" by academics, potential academics, and anyone else who cares about upholding the institution of academic freedom at all costs.
I have worked in higher education for 25 years. I know full well when tenure is, and what is the norm within the academic community. And your statement that "everything that academics say/write can be considered academic freedom" is not accurate.
Marquette outlines in their faculty bylaws by what could cause tenure to be revoked, and the process for that revocation.
http://www.marquette.edu/provost/306.php
"Discretionary cause shall include those circumstances, exclusive of absolute cause, which arise from a faculty member's conduct and which clearly and substantially fail to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence which generally characterizes University faculties, but only if through this conduct a faculty member's value will probably be substantially impaired. Examples of conduct that substantially impair the value or utility of a faculty member are: serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct. In no case, however, shall discretionary cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action."
I don't have time to read the letter that he posted, but I am assuming that they are calling his contact dishonorable and/or irresponsible.
-
period?? do you think MU will admit otherwise? publicly, they need a legal leg to stand on. it's all very logical and easy for them to take the workplace stance, but something still doesn't smell right, especially in the academic setting and the precedent that has been set. what precedent you ask? the one that liberals have set for most universities and now they have to try to blow past it-the fact that liberals own the field of academia. if it were a more even playing field, it wouldn't be this difficult or in other words, people wouldn't be as skeptical.
Find a case where Marquette treated a liberal professor who did the same things and was treated differently and you'd have a case.
Because I know plenty of conservative Marquette professors who function just fine at the University.
-
Find a case where Marquette treated a liberal professor who did the same things and was treated differently and you'd have a case.
Because I know plenty of conservative Marquette professors who function just fine at the University.
you misunderstood my point-it is well known that liberals dominate the field of academia-right? i'm just saying that because of the liberal atmosphere created in general, not just MU, but all over, MU has to overcome that stigma in order to convince the public that the mccadams case isn't really about freedom of speech. many will think that MU is not really going after prof. john for his political views-wink wink. get it? just saying, not trying to argue what it is, but what MU has to overcome
-
Difference here is that it is a professor harassing a student on a blog.
Or a professor calling out the classroom conduct of an instructor.
A Prof brow beating or berating a student is a clear abuse of authority. And I would scream loudest for McAdams to be disciplined. But from what I read, this instructor was guilty of abusing her position of authority vis-a-vis her student.
Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.
-
Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.
What if he were a repeat offender in this regard (as the university maintains and has documented)?
-
What if he were a repeat offender in this regard (as the university maintains and has documented)?
Let's also not forget that it is clearly stated in written policy that graduate student instructors are considered to be students first and instructors second. So any argument that she was "really an instructor" is irrelevant in regards to how she should be regarded in terms of the code of conduct.
-
1. I know who Chomsky is.
OK. Pardon my presumption.
Even the president of the American Association of University Professors - which, literally, has written the book on what academic freedom means - doesn't go as far as you.
Well they certainly do in McAdams's case:
As you [President Lovell] are doubtless aware, our Association’s [AAUP] interest in the case of Professor McAdams stems from its commitment to fundamental tenets of academic freedom, tenure, and due process articulated in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure...Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams’s continuing to teach as constituting a “threat of immediate harm” to himself or others. Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions...Assuming the essential accuracy of the foregoing account, we would urge you to reach an arrangement with Professor McAdams which will return him to his teaching responsibilities (emphasis added)
http://academeblog.org/2015/01/26/aaup-letter-to-marquette-on-john-mcadams/
7. Academic freedom does not protect students or faculty from disciplinary action, but it does require that they receive fair treatment and due process.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/nelson_on_academic_freedom
Both the AAUP and a fellow MU professor claim that McAdams was not given due process
1) Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions (see AAUP's letter above)
2) “My key objection is that action was taken against a professor without due process,” Maguire said. “I decided to write the letter [to President Lovell] because I’m a believer in due process. I’m a long term member of (the American Association of University Professors), which is really the premier of academic freedom and integrity. Their strongest process is due process.”
In the letter, Maguire describes McAdams’ banning from Marquette’s campus as “bizarre, demeaning and unjust.”
“In almost half a century in the academe, I have never seen a similar punishment imposed on a professor in this ‘blunt instrument’ fashion,” Maguire said in his letter.
Maguire goes on to explain how the handling of the widely publicized event affects Marquette’s reputation, in addition to questioning the continuity of due process.
“I believe you [President Lovell] owe us more explanation that you have given on your decision on this matter. Since reports on this situation have gotten national attention and stirred up remembrance of the Dr. Jodi O’Brien contract violation, Marquette’s reputation is affected. We are all affected,” Maguire said in the letter. “The incident has a chilling effect on all members and staff since it implies that due-process protections may be brittle and uncertain at this university and specifically under your presidency.”
http://marquettewire.org/3907918/tribune/tribune-news/theology-professor-defends-john-mcadams-on-grounds-of-due-process/
-
I find your opinion interesting.
Do you feel it is OK for a professor to publicly try to humiliate a student? On a public blog for anyone in the country to read? to open this student up to all kind of vile threats?
I don't care - and I don't think MU cared whether he was conservative. Certainly he had been writing his blog from a far right perspective for a long time and MU never tried to fire him.
Just wondering why you feel MU should pay. And, I don't mean for this post to criticize your opinion.
1. The student was acting as a professor and in charge of teaching class.
2. Just as it is ok to write something positive about a student/prof, it is also acceptable to write something negative or critical.
I think MU over reacted and over stepped its authority in how it has handled the situation.
-
Wow. I find this surreal. So my Senior son has actually done work on behalf of the university that probably most of you have seen. Does 'academic freedom' give a guy like McAdams the right to disparage it publicly (not sure why he would but for the sake of argument)? So there's no limit or line? Sorry, not in my book.
There is a line, but I'm not sure we're all in agreement that line was crossed. Furthermore, you can't ignore the history of what the university was trying to do with him and his views. They are part of the issue here, at least in my opinion. Ultimately that will be for a judge to decide, but I suspect a good lawyer is going to provide linkage.
-
Let's also not forget that it is clearly stated in written policy that graduate student instructors are considered to be students first and instructors second. So any argument that she was "really an instructor" is irrelevant in regards to how she should be regarded in terms of the code of conduct.
Was that the case at the time of the "incident"? Did the student that she taught that ultimately recorded her know this to be the case? Did any of the students? I don't know, I'm honestly asking.
I'd like to see the language of the written policy because that's not how it has always be portrayed. Was that consistent, only sometimes, etc, etc. Again, I don't know, but would love to know what was in place at the time.
-
Well they certainly do in McAdams's case:
As you [President Lovell] are doubtless aware, our Association’s [AAUP] interest .....
This is all well and good, but you've shifted the discussion from your initial point - that academic freedom and tenure grants one license to say or do pretty much anything - to making it a question of whether or not McAdams received due process.
Those are two very different issues/contentions.
-
This is all well and good, but you've shifted the discussion from your initial point - that academic freedom and tenure grants one license to say or do pretty much anything - to making it a question of whether or not McAdams received due process.
Those are two very different issues/contentions.
Nah man, it just looks like i shifted the discussion because I didn't break up the post. Or, alternatively, it looks that way because I didn't put "furthermore" between the two points that I was making.
If you read the AAUP's letter they lament two aspects of McAdams's suspension:
1) Given their knowledge of the situtation, the suspension was unjust (independent of the lack of due process):
Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams’s continuing to teach as constituting a “threat of immediate harm” to himself or others.
2) Furthermore, McAdams was not given due process (which the theology prof corroborates):
Nor are we aware of the administration’s having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions
-
Or a professor calling out the classroom conduct of an instructor.
A Prof brow beating or berating a student is a clear abuse of authority. And I would scream loudest for McAdams to be disciplined. But from what I read, this instructor was guilty of abusing her position of authority vis-a-vis her student.
Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.
I think you might be forgetting that John was already on double secret probation for past transgressions. The paper trail is a mile long. This was simply the last straw.
-
you misunderstood my point-it is well known that liberals dominate the field of academia-right? i'm just saying that because of the liberal atmosphere created in general, not just MU, but all over, MU has to overcome that stigma in order to convince the public that the mccadams case isn't really about freedom of speech. many will think that MU is not really going after prof. john for his political views-wink wink. get it? just saying, not trying to argue what it is, but what MU has to overcome
While I understand your point, let's consider other actions taken by the university in the last 3-4 years. First, Fr. Wild personally yanked the job offer for the prospective Arts & Sciences Dean when the vetting of her far left writings demonstrated that they were clearly in conflict with church teachings. Yes, MU wrote a check to make her go away. It was the right thing to do as they had effed up the original screening. Second, recall the Shakur mural incident this Spring. It was formally brought to the attention of Senior Leadership on a Saturday, whitewashed over by Sunday night, and the director was terminated at Dr. Lovell's personal direction on Tuesday morning. How would that have gone over in Missouri in today's climate? You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens.
-
I think you might be forgetting that John was already on double secret probation for past transgressions. The paper trail is a mile long. This was simply the last straw.
Why was he on double secret probation? I thought Brandx said the university wasn't out for him. What had he done in the past that put him on double secret probation? ?-(
-
While I understand your point, let's consider other actions taken by the university in the last 3-4 years. First, Fr. Wild personally yanked the job offer for the prospective Arts & Sciences Dean when the vetting of her far left writings demonstrated that they were clearly in conflict with church teachings. Yes, MU wrote a check to make her go away. It was the right thing to do as they had effed up the original screening. Second, recall the Shakur mural incident this Spring. It was formally brought to the attention of Senior Leadership on a Saturday, whitewashed over by Sunday night, and the director was terminated at Dr. Lovell's personal direction on Tuesday morning. How would that have gone over in Missouri in today's climate? You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens.
With all due respect, at the end of the day, we are a Catholic institution (allegedly) and Wild had little choice. As for the mural coming down, she was a MURDERER of a cop...execution style, MU never should have had the mural up to begin with and taking it down would not have been an issue even in today's "Missouri" climate....again, she was a murderer....they had every moral, ethical and legal ground to stand on to remove that mural, regardless of what is going on in college campuses today....most of it silliness.
-
Nah man, it just looks like i shifted the discussion because I didn't break up the post. Or, alternatively, it looks that way because I didn't put "furthermore" between the two points that I was making.
If you read the AAUP's letter they lament two aspects of McAdams's suspension:
1) Given their knowledge of the situtation, the suspension was unjust (independent of the lack of due process):
Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams’s continuing to teach as constituting a “threat of immediate harm” to himself or others.
You and I are reading this passage differently.
I believe this is written in response/objection to MU's decision to immediately suspend McAdams and bar him from campus while the proceedings to revoke his tenure are pending. The AAUP is arguing that McAdams remaining on campus and continuing to teach during the proceedings would not pose a threat, and therefore the suspension is unnecessary.
I don't think this statement has anything to do with the tenure issue or his dismissal (much less academic freedom).
In fact, the paragraphs in the AAUP letter to MU that immediately precede the one you pasted makes it clear they're talking about a suspension pending a dismissal hearing:
A faculty member’s suspension for a definite time from his or her primary responsibilities is on occasion imposed as a severe sanction, second only to dismissal, following a faculty hearing on stated cause. Under the 1958 Statement, amplified as follows in Regulation 5(a) of the Recommended Institutional Regulations, an administration also may suspend a faculty member pending a dismissal hearing, but only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance. Before suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of the faculty member’s status through the institution’s hearing procedures, the administration will consult with the Faculty Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure [or whatever other title it may have] concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension that is intended to be final is a dismissal and will be treated as such.
-
With all due respect, at the end of the day, we are a Catholic institution (allegedly) and Wild had little choice. As for the mural coming down, she was a MURDERER of a cop...execution style, MU never should have had the mural up to begin with and taking it down would not have been an issue even in today's "Missouri" climate....again, she was a murderer....they had every moral, ethical and legal ground to stand on to remove that mural, regardless of what is going on in college campuses today....most of it silliness.
Yeah I figured you would apply this kind of logic. When they do something that appeals to conservatives its "well of course...why wouldn't they?" When they do something that appeals to liberals its "the administration has a liberal agenda!!!"
-
1. The student was acting as a professor and in charge of teaching class.
2. Just as it is ok to write something positive about a student/prof, it is also acceptable to write something negative or critical.
I think MU over reacted and over stepped its authority in how it has handled the situation.
No. That is not how Marquette, or any other higher education institution, treats graduate students who are teaching. They do not categorize some of their activities as "acting like a professor," and others as "acting like a student." You are trying to create a distinction that does not exist. They are students. Faculty are supposed to mentor students. You can't simply dismiss what is the very essence of the problem.
-
" You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens"
absolutely, except they don't think they are "lefties". they think they are conventional wisdom, moderates that see things the way they should be and everyone else is either FAR right extremists or just plain ole liberal. note the adjectives
-
No. That is not how Marquette, or any other higher education institution, treats graduate students who are teaching. They do not categorize some of their activities as "acting like a professor," and others as "acting like a student." You are trying to create a distinction that does not exist. They are students. Faculty are supposed to mentor students. You can't simply dismiss what is the very essence of the problem.
Hypothetically, consider that a TA negligently teaches a bunch of incorrect facts throughout the semester (i.e. not deliberately, but let's say that this TA didn't prepare for the course in the manner that a TA responsibly would); when it comes to the final, the entire class ends up failing the course.
(Is "sh\t show" supposed to be hyphenated?)
So what happens to the TA? Do you simply dismiss the actions because he/she is a "student first," or do you hold the TA accountable?
-
Hypothetically, consider that a TA negligently teaches a bunch of incorrect facts throughout the semester (i.e. not deliberately, but let's say that this TA didn't prepare for the course in the manner that a TA responsibly would); when it comes to the final, the entire class ends up failing the course.
(Is "sh\t show" supposed to be hyphenated?)
So what happens to the TA? Do you simply dismiss the actions because he/she is a "student first," or do you hold the TA accountable?
Well of course you hold them accountable. Who said that they shouldn't be held accountable? Cheryl Abbate should have been held accountable for how she handled the incident in the classroom. She handled it poorly.
But there are proper ways to handle it. Then there was what McAdams did. He didn't gather facts. He made a cursory effort to contact Abbate. He didn't contact the department chair or dean. He went right to his blog to call her out.
-
So, uhm does anyone know why he was on double secret probation since he wasn't targeted according to Brand?
-
Well of course you hold them accountable. Who said that they shouldn't be held accountable? Cheryl Abbate should have been held accountable for how she handled the incident in the classroom. She handled it poorly.
But there are proper ways to handle it. Then there was what McAdams did. He didn't gather facts. He made a cursory effort to contact Abbate. He didn't contact the department chair or dean. He went right to his blog to call her out.
So who gets to decide what the "proper ways to handle it" are? And should that involve silencing someone's right to free speech? And who is the arbiter if there's a dispute?
What if McAdams called out the student who was trying to make trouble instead of the TA? Would that merit a similar response? And what exactly does "called out" mean? Is commenting on observation no longer acceptable? Is it only acceptable to talk about your opinions when the majority agrees? Or is it only acceptable to speak about something in a way that nobody gets their feelings hurt?
If this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, then I'd like to know who/what's been propping up the camel until now. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this incident itself as a big deal at all... what I see is a system of tenure that's either encouraging or - at the very least - condoning actions that are contrary to the advancement of education.
In other words, this sh\t-show isn't about McAdams... my concern is that his fall is nothing more than a diversion to a much greater issue that no one wants to (or will) address: whose responsibility is it to enforce the line between education and indoctrination.
-
So who gets to decide what the "proper ways to handle it" are?
The University through its policies and procedures. Which McAdams completely ignored.
And should that involve silencing someone's right to free speech?
McAdams didn't lose his right to free speech.
And who is the arbiter if there's a dispute?
The University through its policies and procedures. Which McAdams completely ignored.
What if McAdams called out the student who was trying to make trouble instead of the TA? Would that merit a similar response?
Definitely.
Is commenting on observation no longer acceptable? Is it only acceptable to talk about your opinions when the majority agrees? Or is it only acceptable to speak about something in a way that nobody gets their feelings hurt?
I'm not even sure how these questions are even relevant to the issue at hand.
If this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, then I'd like to know who/what's been propping up the camel until now. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this incident itself as a big deal at all... what I see is a system of tenure that's either encouraging or - at the very least - condoning actions that are contrary to the advancement of education.
In other words, this sh\t-show isn't about McAdams... my concern is that his fall is nothing more than a diversion to a much greater issue that no one wants to (or will) address: whose responsibility is it to enforce the line between education and indoctrination.
This has nothing to do with indoctrination.
I mean I have repeatedly said that Abatte was wrong in how she handled the incident from the beginning. I think many who believe McAdams erred believe the same way. This isn't a political issue for me or for Marquette.
-
So, uhm does anyone know why he was on double secret probation since he wasn't targeted according to Brand?
I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.
See page 14:
http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf
-
I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.
See page 14:
http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf
Incidentally, I have never used the term "double secret probation" on Scoop. Ever (except right now in this post).
I have only used the word probation twice - once referring to Greg Hardy and the other referring to colleges paying players.
Putting "Brand" and "double secret probation" together is just one more delusional post.
-
I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.
See page 14:
http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf
I know the movie well....even played a round of golf with D-Day a number of years ago...it was a blast talking about the making of the movie, etc, etc.
I'm also well aware of the PDF, I posted it here myself many months ago. This is all related "the incident". I'm talking about prior to this.....which of course he was warned and the university backed down about his conservative views on his blog. That is what I'm talking about....that's part of the prejudice that many of us see, that the university didn't like his views long long (years) before this incident.
-
I've had many professors comment on the situation both who lean right and left. (they probably shouldn't have but that's beside the point) Every singl one of them agreed with the universities actions. From what they made it sound, McAdams was a guy who liked to start fires and conflict where there were none. It wasn't just this one incident with the student, he dug his own grave with poor relationships with other professors as well.
-
There is a line, but I'm not sure we're all in agreement that line was crossed. Furthermore, you can't ignore the history of what the university was trying to do with him and his views. They are part of the issue here, at least in my opinion. Ultimately that will be for a judge to decide, but I suspect a good lawyer is going to provide linkage.
Just like you can't ignore his past antagonism of the university.
-
I know the movie well....even played a round of golf with D-Day a number of years ago...it was a blast talking about the making of the movie, etc, etc.
You are too much.
-
Graduate students are students.
If they teach, they are still students who teach.
They are not professors.
Their status within the university is that of a graduate student first. Not an employee. In the same way that an undergrad who cleans rat sh!t out of the rat cages in the biology labs for beer money (I actually did this at MU) is a student first, not an employee.
There is a massive power difference between a graduate student who is teaching a class and a tenured professor harassing that student. McAdams and the harassment victim were not equals.
If you can't see this, I don't know what else to tell you.
-
I used double secret probation somewhat in jest but ut us fair to say he has been warned in writing in the past.
-
" You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens"
absolutely, except they don't think they are "lefties". they think they are conventional wisdom, moderates that see things the way they should be and everyone else is either FAR right extremists or just plain ole liberal. note the adjectives
I'd just ask you to trust me on this rocket.
-
I used double secret probation somewhat in jest but ut us fair to say he has been warned in writing in the past.
I understood that - but we have another poster who is not quite able to see any colors except black and white.
-
You are too much.
Bruce McGill...had a great time. One of the best golf outings I've ever had. Part of the Oscar De La Hoya charity event. We beat George Lopez, Sugar Ray Leonard and a few others. A total blast.
-
Just like you can't ignore his past antagonism of the university.
Antagonism isn't a grounds for firing at a university where one has tenure....just a reminder.
-
I used double secret probation somewhat in jest but ut us fair to say he has been warned in writing in the past.
Correct, but what was that warning for? That's the key. It was because they didn't like his views, etc....not anything to do with naming an student instructor.
-
Correct, but what was that warning for? That's the key. It was because they didn't like his views, etc....not anything to do with naming an student instructor.
Give us the facts. You just made a definitive statement that it was because of his views. That gives us two options to ponder. Either you know some facts but refuse to say what they are - or you're lying.
-
Graduate students are students.
If they teach, they are still students who teach.
They are not professors.
Their status within the university is that of a graduate student first. Not an employee. In the same way that an undergrad who cleans rat sh!t out of the rat cages in the biology labs for beer money (I actually did this at MU) is a student first, not an employee.
There is a massive power difference between a graduate student who is teaching a class and a tenured professor harassing that student. McAdams and the harassment victim were not equals.
If you can't see this, I don't know what else to tell you.
Ahh, that's cute and all, but the courts will decide that. Sure, they are students but they are ALSO employees. Are they being paid to teach? Thus, an employee contract?
-
Ahh, that's cute and all, but the courts will decide that. Sure, they are students but they are ALSO employees. Are they being paid to teach? Thus, an employee contract?
They're not being paid to teach though I don't think? What about undergrad TA's then. Are the employees too because they lead discussion?
-
" You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens"
absolutely, except they don't think they are "lefties". they think they are conventional wisdom, moderates that see things the way they should be and everyone else is either FAR right extremists or just plain ole liberal. note the adjectives
and you don't think MU leadership is left of center?
http://marquettewire.org/3937753/tribune/tribune-news/marquette-community-stages-silent-demonstration-for-the-university-of-missouri-people-of-color/
talk about a CYA moment- holy schnikees!! i'm not criticizing them for their stance-this is america and some of us do believe in freedom of speech. i'm just pointing this out. in my humble opinion, he could be an adult here and point out that these kids need to grow up. it's only going to be a few more years and we'll see where this kind of conduct will get them at, say, 3M, or wells fargo et.al. but lovell is afraid he'll just make them angry and next thing ya know, they'll be axking for his rear end...sing along now...winter, spring, summer or fall, all you've got to do is call and i'll....
-
and you don't think MU leadership is left of center?
http://marquettewire.org/3937753/tribune/tribune-news/marquette-community-stages-silent-demonstration-for-the-university-of-missouri-people-of-color/
talk about a CYA moment- holy schnikees!! i'm not criticizing them for their stance-this is america and some of us do believe in freedom of speech. i'm just pointing this out. in my humble opinion, he could be an adult here and point out that these kids need to grow up. it's only going to be a few more years and we'll see where this kind of conduct will get them at, say, 3M, or wells fargo et.al. but lovell is afraid he'll just make them angry and next thing ya know, they'll be axking for his rear end...sing along now...winter, spring, summer or fall, all you've got to do is call and i'll....
Was anyone allowed to talk to them, or were they required to have safety space?
-
Was anyone allowed to talk to them, or were they required to have safety space?
are you kidding-did you see what they did to that girl down in georgia southern when she tweeted out against blacklivesmatter?
they walked out of class, wanted her expelled and called her tweet violence/threat against them. free speech my butt cheeks
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georgia-college-student-criticizes-mizzou-protesters-becomes-victim-of-witch-hunt/
-
are you kidding-did you see what they did to that girl down in georgia southern when she tweeted out against blacklivesmatter?
they walked out of class, wanted her expelled and called her tweet violence/threat against them. free speech my butt cheeks
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/georgia-college-student-criticizes-mizzou-protesters-becomes-victim-of-witch-hunt/
By the way, that chick is hot....I'm just saying. I heard she got fired. This is a jacked up world.
-
By the way, that chick is hot....I'm just saying. I heard she got fired. This is a jacked up world.
i love it when they take charge like that- she could tuck my tail away-heyna way she wants
-
and you don't think MU leadership is left of center?
http://marquettewire.org/3937753/tribune/tribune-news/marquette-community-stages-silent-demonstration-for-the-university-of-missouri-people-of-color/
talk about a CYA moment- holy schnikees!! i'm not criticizing them for their stance-this is america and some of us do believe in freedom of speech. i'm just pointing this out. in my humble opinion, he could be an adult here and point out that these kids need to grow up. it's only going to be a few more years and we'll see where this kind of conduct will get them at, say, 3M, or wells fargo et.al. but lovell is afraid he'll just make them angry and next thing ya know, they'll be axking for his rear end...sing along now...winter, spring, summer or fall, all you've got to do is call and i'll....
Why do they need to grow up? They were engaging in a peaceful protest. They weren't being violent or disruptive.
-
I sincerely think MU wanted to avoid this situation at all costs. Various administrations at MU have endured McAdams for years, tolerating his constant antagonism of the university and setting them up to make him seem like a conservative victim, all the while plenty of conservatives have been tenured at MU with no issues whatsoever (there are plenty of conservative professors, I had them at MU). McAdams and Maguire have been the two biggest thorns in MU's side, interestingly enough from opposite sides of the spectrum. Both see themselves as Socratic gadflies standing up to the man. And both clearly have an inflated perception of themselves.
MU didn't want this fight. They didn't want to fire McAdams. Lovell knew McAdams would turn this into a circus, bring as much attention as he could to it, and turn himself into a martyr at all costs. They knew it would become politicized, alienate some groups of alumni, and potentially impact donations.
The only reason MU took McAdams' bait is because it had to. He crossed a line, and he did it knowingly. In chess, when you are put into check, you have to move out of check, even if it means collateral damage. McAdams put MU into check, and MU had to act, even if it meant a battle it did not want. McAdams publicly harassed a student on a blog. MU was willing to endure a lot, but there was a line that McAdams crossed, and it had to respond.
The sad thing in all this is that it could have been avoided, if McAdams had addressed his concerns through proper channels and not publicly outed the student. But clearly, he didn't care about the the actual situation. It was a means to an end to bring attention to himself. He got what he wanted.
-
I sincerely think MU wanted to avoid this situation at all costs. Various administrations at MU have endured McAdams for years, tolerating his constant antagonism of the university and setting them up to make him seem like a conservative victim, all the while plenty of conservatives have been tenured at MU with no issues whatsoever (there are plenty of conservative professors, I had them at MU). McAdams and Maguire have been the two biggest thorns in MU's side, interestingly enough from opposite sides of the spectrum. Both see themselves as Socratic gadflies standing up to the man. And both clearly have an inflated perception of themselves.
MU didn't want this fight. They didn't want to fire McAdams. Lovell knew McAdams would turn this into a circus, bring as much attention as he could to it, and turn himself into a martyr at all costs. They knew it would become politicized, alienate some groups of alumni, and potentially impact donations.
The only reason MU took McAdams' bait is because it had to. He crossed a line, and he did it knowingly. In chess, when you are put into check, you have to move out of check, even if it means collateral damage. McAdams put MU into check, and MU had to act, even if it meant a battle it did not want. McAdams publicly harassed a student on a blog. MU was willing to endure a lot, but there was a line that McAdams crossed, and it had to respond.
The sad thing in all this is that it could have been avoided, if McAdams had addressed his concerns through proper channels and not publicly outed the student. But clearly, he didn't care about the the actual situation. It was a means to an end to bring attention to himself. He got what he wanted.
Well written and an accurate portrayal of the situation.
-
This has nothing to do with indoctrination.
I mean I have repeatedly said that Abatte was wrong in how she handled the incident from the beginning. I think many who believe McAdams erred believe the same way. This isn't a political issue for me or for Marquette.
You work in academia, do you not, Sultan? Have you ever seen someone call out the system and live to tell about it? Of course not, because like the noble lemming, academicians may question each other, but they'll never question the group.
Of course this isn't "political issue" because none of the parties are actually campaigning for office (shout out to all the recent graduates of the Hillary School for Semantics)... but it is - at its core - a philosophical issue heavily involving political leanings and/or viewpoints. To you, this is all about rules and procedure, and that can't be bad because after all, the system writes the rules and procedure to protect itself, right?
The only reason that any of this is an issue is because McAdams, the student and the TA chose to make it one. All three injected their own political leanings into an otherwise innocuous exchange between "teacher," student and observer. If either one - McAdams or the TA - had been open to discussing others' views and opinions, none of this happens. But one chose the path of aggression, one chose silence and the other chose the path of attack, none chose the path of wisdom.
Is that how academia is supposed to work? If you don't like what the other person says, you dismiss them? What happened to creating a dialogue? When did higher education become about injecting personal bias and opinion into fact and application? Liberals and conservatives point the finger at each other, but each is as much to blame as the other.
It isn't about agreement or even tolerance, for that matter. Let the politicians sling the mud. Let the campaign managers sow the seeds of fear. Let the money manipulate. Let the voters capitulate to a political system that has no regard for them. Academia is where issues need to be discussed, theories need to be challenged, and dialogue needs to be fostered, not silenced or attacked. Every time the latter is opted for, it strictly serves to harden mindsets and encourage others to follow suit.
In other words, who gives a f*ck about the rules and procedures here... this is about ethics. What is ethical about what anyone did here? McAdams is now a martyr, the TA gets a free ride to Boulder, and the student has ideological street cred... what did the rest of us get? A PR nightmare and a 28-page thread of political bitching back and forth. To you, it's not political, but to those involved, it's nothing but.
But of course, if society demanded that our academicians always default to doing what is ethical, we'd have a severe shortage of professors in this country. That is the result of a system that shows no regard for the betterment of the group, only the advancement of individuals. And you're following in lockstep, whether you realize it or not (your response of "I'm not even sure how these questions are even relevant" gave you away).
It appears that we agree 100% on the fact that everyone involved here screwed up, yet why should I be the only one to ask "why?" So ignore the bigger picture if you think it serves your own interests. But know this: when you close your eyes and dig your head into the sands of "rules and procedure," you won't see the settling of the sand that will eventually asphyxiate you.
-
very well done benny!! even though this wasn't put onto the political column, your comments give cred to the political threads that many are quick to dismiss. yes, it gets a little contentious here, but hey, sometimes we have to see a few scrapes and bruises in order to get closer to an understanding of the issues
-
In today's MU Tribune there is a story reporting that the decision regarding tenured political science professor John McAdam’s status at Marquette University was recently sent to University President Michael Lovell.
Lovell didn’t provide a timeline that he’ll follow for making his decision.
http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/ (http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/)
-
In today's MU Tribune there is a story reporting that the decision regarding tenured political science professor John McAdam’s status at Marquette University was recently sent to University President Michael Lovell.
Lovell didn’t provide a timeline that he’ll follow for making his decision.
http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/ (http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/)
McAdams' quotes betray his entire motivation for this affair...publicity
"McAdams said on the Vicki McKenna Show on Newstalk 1310 WIBA. “If (the committee) say(s) Marquette can fire me, it will be easier for Marquette — although not terribly easy, because that would create a huge amount of bad publicity for Marquette and they have essentially been promised a lawsuit from my lawyers.”"
He is salivating at the thought of getting fired.
I hope Lovell delivers. He doesn't deserve to work at Marquette.
-
McAdams' quotes betray his entire motivation for this affair...publicity
"McAdams said on the Vicki McKenna Show on Newstalk 1310 WIBA. “If (the committee) say(s) Marquette can fire me, it will be easier for Marquette — although not terribly easy, because that would create a huge amount of bad publicity for Marquette and they have essentially been promised a lawsuit from my lawyers.”"
He is salivating at the thought of getting fired.
I hope Lovell delivers. He doesn't deserve to work at Marquette.
Yeah, who needs a diverse point of view.
-
Yeah, who needs a diverse point of view.
Are you implying there are no other conservative professors at MU?
I'm may be reading too much into your comment.
-
In today's MU Tribune there is a story reporting that the decision regarding tenured political science professor John McAdam’s status at Marquette University was recently sent to University President Michael Lovell.
Lovell didn’t provide a timeline that he’ll follow for making his decision.
http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/ (http://marquettewire.org/3942182/tribune/tribune-news/mcadams-fate-at-marquette-rests-in-lovells-hands/)
I'd expect a late afternoon Friday press release... just like the good ol' days under Buzz.
-
I guess it might have been getting a little hot in there AYYYN'a
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-suspends-john-mcadams-through-the-fall-2016-semester-b99694030z1-373420291.html?ipad=y
Must admit he was wrong...what will Johnny do??
-
FIGHT THE POWER, JOHN!!