MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on May 17, 2015, 06:48:24 AM
-
Marquette University honors ’70s cop-killer, prison escapee Assata Shakur with mural
Posted at 7:58 pm on May 16, 2015
http://twitchy.com/2015/05/16/marquette-university-honors-70s-cop-killer-prison-escapee-assata-shakur-with-mural/
It was just a couple of weeks ago that Twitchy reported on a disturbing new fashion trend among #BlackLivesMatter demonstrators: the emergence of the “ASSATA TAUGHT ME” protest hoodie, celebrating ’70s cop-killer Assata Shakur.
In a 2013 column, Michelle Malkin gave a primer on cop-killing radicals fetishized by the Left, including Shakur, née Joanne Chesimard, who in 1973 shot and killed New Jersey state trooper Werner Foerster execution-style during a traffic stop. She was sentenced to life in 1977, but escaped from prison two years later with help from violent left-wing accomplices and now lives in Cuba as a political asylee.
As Twitchy wrote at the time, “What exactly has Assata taught protesters? That cop-killing pays.”
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w8i0xa6Qzy8/VVdejUobeQI/AAAAAAAAWuw/gYzHpC7xcHc/s1600/Shakur.jpg)
It turns out that Shakur keeps on teaching, having found a prominent position at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wis. That position is on a wall in the university’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, in the form of a mural featuring her likeness and two quotes.
Charles Sykes, editor-in-chief of Right Wisconsin, points his readers to a post in the Marquette Warrior by John McAdams, a professor of political science at Marquette who has been ordered to stay off campus over a blog post criticizing a student teacher who wouldn’t allow one of her students to voice his opposition to same-sex marriage in class.
-
According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur
Assata Olugbala Shakur (born JoAnne Deborah Byron on July 16, 1947[1]), whose married name was Chesimard,[2][3] is an African-American activist and member of the former Black Panther Party (BPP) and Black Liberation Army (BLA). Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was accused of several crimes and was the subject of a multistate manhunt.[4][5]
In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she was accused of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulting Trooper James Harper.[6] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[6] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[7]
Shakur was incarcerated in several prisons in the 1970s. She escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba in 1984 after living as a fugitive for a few years, and received political asylum. She has been living in Cuba ever since. Since May 2, 2005, the FBI has classified her as a domestic terrorist and offered a $1 million reward for assistance in her capture. On May 2, 2013, the FBI added her to the Most Wanted Terrorist List; the first woman to be listed.[8] On the same day, the New Jersey Attorney General offered to match the FBI reward, increasing the total reward for her capture to $2 million.[9]
-
@SykesCharlie
As Foerster lay on ground wounded and helpless, Shakur grabbed his gun and blasted two shots into his head.
----------------
So when will MU put up a mural praising "Jihadi John", the ISIS executioner that beheaded James Foley?
-
There better be more details to this story than what I read above. If not, then I find this mural to be an appalling, utterly stupid mistake by my alma mater. Anyone know any more about it?
-
There better be more details to this story than what I read above. If not, then I find this mural to be an appalling, utterly stupid mistake by my alma mater. Anyone know any more about it?
Why don't you ask the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center? They have a public Facebook page, and very likely a phone. If you are respectful about it, you will likely get a substantive response.
-
There better be more details to this story than what I read above. If not, then I find this mural to be an appalling, utterly stupid mistake by my alma mater. Anyone know any more about it?
+100. I usually don't go in for the random shenanigans on campus, I don't get riled up about McAdams or whatever the angst flavor of the day is.
But this one pisses me off.
Anyone know if there's another side of the story? I mean, there has to be for unnatural carnal knowledges sake.
-
It's Marquette being Marquette. And someone got pissy with me the other day when I said that we had an unbelievably bloated bureaucracy. Put politics aside, a lot of these people are too stupid to be employed by any serious organization.
-
It's Marquette being Marquette. And someone got pissy with me the other day when I said that we had an unbelievably bloated bureaucracy. Put politics aside, a lot of these people are too stupid to be employed by any serious organization.
Statements like this are just pissing in the wind.
-
+100. I usually don't go in for the random shenanigans on campus, I don't get riled up about McAdams or whatever the angst flavor of the day is.
But this one pisses me off.
Anyone know if there's another side of the story? I mean, there has to be for unnatural carnal knowledges sake.
Look at the first post, MU tweeted out the picture praising it! Their is no other side. Both the administration and GSRC think this is a good idea.
Should MU "shut it down?" No, but Lovell can and should make a speech decrying it, embarrassing those that thought this was a good idea and make it clear that this free expression of speech, while allowed, is not the right message.
And while Lovell is at it, he can apologize to McAdams and say the same applies to him.
He won't ... MU wants to be an elite university like that big school in Madison. That means celebrating violent left-wing murderers and punishing right-wingers that ask questions in a blog post.
They are well on their way.
-
Another thought,
If MU does not distance himself from this soon, some reporter is going to ask Walker about it. I expect him to be very critical of it and MU will became a "whipping boy" for the debate of left-wing professors ruining US colleges within the presidential campaign.
Unless Lovell wants to go on Meet the Press or Fox New Sunday and have to defend it, and probably look bad trying and make MU seem like a place that encourages hate and has turned its back on Catholic values, the administration should reconsider their praise for this hateful Mural.
-
Look at the first post, MU tweeted out the picture praising it! Their is no other side. Both the administration and GSRC think this is a good idea.
Should MU "shut it down?" No, but Lovell can and should make a speech decrying it, embarrassing those that thought this was a good idea and make it clear that this free expression of speech, while allowed, is not the right message.
And while Lovell is at it, he can apologize to McAdams and say the same applies to him.
He won't ... MU wants to be an elite university like that big school in Madison. That means celebrating violent left-wing murderers and punishing right-wingers that ask questions in a blog post.
They are well on their way.
While I find this mural to be outrageous I find your comment to be asinine
-
While I find this mural to be outrageous I find your comment to be asinine
Please explain
-
Look at the first post, MU tweeted out the picture praising it! Their is no other side. Both the administration and GSRC think this is a good idea.
Actually that is a copy of a Facebook post. Not a tweet. And we have no idea if "the administration" thinks this is a good idea. My guess is that they don't even know.
Should MU "shut it down?" No, but Lovell can and should make a speech decrying it, embarrassing those that thought this was a good idea and make it clear that this free expression of speech, while allowed, is not the right message.
Really? The President of the University should make a speech (bringing more attention to it) with the intent of either "embarrassing" staff or students?
No. What they should do is decide if it is inappropriate, and if so, paint it over sometime this summer.
And while Lovell is at it, he can apologize to McAdams and say the same applies to him.
He won't ... MU wants to be an elite university like that big school in Madison. That means celebrating violent left-wing murderers and punishing right-wingers that ask questions in a blog post.
Of course the two situations are completely different. But don't let that stop your hyperbolic rants.
-
Is AMU425 a room for all students or is it the (private/semi-private) offices of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center? And who commissioned the painting?
I ask because this could be nothing more than having a slightly-bigger poster on the wall. I mean, what if some political science professor had a poster of Joseph Stalin in his office? Should Lovell make a statement? Of course not. Is this painting in a public part of the university?
-
Really? The President of the University should make a speech (bringing more attention to it) with the intent of either "embarrassing" staff or students?
No. What they should do is decide if it is inappropriate, and if so, paint it over sometime this summer.
Its already getting national news and when Walker weighs in (because someone will ask him), it will get a lot more.
And if it is not getting enough attention, waiting until the GSRC members chain themselves to AMU door 425 to prevent it from being painted over this summer ... per your idea of saying nothing and sending in a maintenance man with a bucket of white paint some random Tuesday in July. You don't think that will make news?
Finally, I don't think we should excuse the facebook post because we should come to expect MU to be a bloated inefficient bureaucracy where no one knows what anyone else is doing.
-
Its already getting national news and when Walker weighs in (because someone will ask him), it will get a lot more.
And if it is not getting enough attention, waiting until the GSRC members chain themselves to AMU door 425 to prevent it from being painted over this summer ... per your idea of saying nothing and sending in a maintenance man with a bucket of white paint some random Tuesday in July. You don't think that will make news?
Finally, I don't think we should excuse the facebook post because we should come to expect MU to be a bloated inefficient bureaucracy where no one knows what anyone else is doing.
No one is going to chain themselves to anything unless the President of the University amps up the controversy by making a speech about it as a way of shaming students and staff. While this is a dumb thing, it isn't getting all that much attention and isn't really that big of a deal. This is something you handle quietly.
And I have no idea what your last paragraph means. I have no idea who runs that Facebook account. For all I know it could be a student.
EDIT: This center is run under the direction of Dr. Susannah Bartlow. Again, my suggestion is that you email her and respectfully ask these questions directly to her. You can find her email address on Marquette's web site.
-
Schools out. Students are gone.
Go in and repaint it.
Just like those b@stards did to our Dark Side of the Moon painting on 10 south over the summer of 1980.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/q4mziCJheiw
-
No one is going to chain themselves to anything unless the President of the University amps up the controversy by making a speech about it as a way of shaming students and staff. While this is a dumb thing, it isn't getting all that much attention and isn't really that big of a deal. This is something you handle quietly.
And I have no idea what your last paragraph means. I have no idea who runs that Facebook account. For all I know it could be a student.
So the GSRC students are going to get a stern lecture behind closed doors and without any publicly it will quietly be painted over with no one saying a word about it? You really believe this will happen?
You know why this room even exists in the first place?
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/perspectives/marquette-university-honors-a-cop-killer-304002621.html
Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center was set up as a sop to the campus gay lobby in the wake of Marquette’s refusal to hire aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences dean candidate Jodi O’Brien. Not surprisingly, it has consistently pursued a leftist secular agenda including, for example, the Femsex Seminar, which was so raunchy and so opposed to Marquette’s supposed "Catholic mission" that the Administration ordered that sponsorship be withdrawn.
MU has already publicly rebuked them once, so why would a scond be so bad? Because this time everyone is paying attention?
I see no way this goes away quietly with them allowing it to be painted over without protest.
----
Again, MU is going to get a different kind of exposure the next 18 months., Walker is running for President and his years at MU, and lack of a degree already put it in a spotlight. Walker has not announced yet, but when he does, the spotlight will change (and after he announces he will be asked about this unless it is painted over without controversy as you suggest).
The facebook account presents itself as a defacto statement from MU. You're right it is probably a student. Their policies should change on what goes on it. Because right now the post suggests the administration approves of the Mural.
-
So the GSRC students are going to get a stern lecture behind closed doors and without any publicly it will quietly be painted over with no one saying a word about it? You really believe this will happen?
Do I think that's what will happen? No. My guess is nothing happens and this will fall on to the dustbin of controversies that really aren't that big of a deal. And no...Walker will not be asked about it.
I think my suggestion that this be handled quietly is better than yours about giving a speech with the intent of embarrassing people.
-
Do I think that's what will happen? No. My guess is nothing happens and this will fall on to the dustbin of controversies that really aren't that big of a deal. And no...Walker will not be asked about it.
I think my suggestion that this be handled quietly is better than yours about giving a speech with the intent of embarrassing people.
If it could be handled quietly, it would have never happened in the first place. This group seems to be so radicalized that I think their intention was to make an outrageous statements with the intent of getting push-back. And if this mural is not addressed, it will be forgotten because their next statement will be even more outrageous. So draw the line now.
Responsibility is an important part of maturing. If you want to make statements like this, then you should be asked to defend them. If this is to much to ask of this group, then the GSRC should be closed.
-
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/perspectives/marquette-university-honors-a-cop-killer-304002621.html
Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center was set up as a sop to the campus gay lobby in the wake of Marquette’s refusal to hire aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences dean candidate Jodi O’Brien. Not surprisingly, it has consistently pursued a leftist secular agenda including, for example, the Femsex Seminar, which was so raunchy and so opposed to Marquette’s supposed "Catholic mission" that the Administration ordered that sponsorship be withdrawn.
BTW, I think it is hilarious that the dumb decision not to hire O'Brien lead indirectly to this controversy.
-
If it could be handled quietly, it would have never happened in the first place. This group seems to be so radicalized that I think their intention was to make an outrageous statements with the intent of getting push-back. And if this mural is not addressed, it will be forgotten because their next statement will be even more outrageous. So draw the line now.
Responsibility is an important part of maturing. If you want to make statements like this, then you should be asked to defend them. If this is to much to ask of this group, then the GSRC should be closed.
I don't think the intent of the group was to make controversial statements for the sake of getting push back. I mean this mural was completed in late March and as far as I know, didn't come to the public's eye until the last few days.
You're overreacting.
-
I don't think the intent of the group was to make controversial statements for the sake of getting push back. I mean this mural was completed in late March and as far as I know, didn't come to the public's eye until the last few days.
You're overreacting.
If it is not to attract attention, then please explain what they think the purpose of this mural is?
And when answering, please interpret/rationalize the first quote recalling that a violent murderer made this statement.
(https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/p180x540/10370814_703178749792960_662100106110939961_n.jpg?oh=ceb382cf489d1dac255fc5b737e4f1d5&oe=55BFEB86)
-
If it is not to attract attention, then please explain what they think the purpose of this mural is?
I don't know. Art? Inspirational quote? If it was simply to create controversy, they didn't really do a good job at it.
As I said, ask the Director. I gave you her name. You can find her contact information pretty easily.
-
I don't know. Art? Inspirational quote? If it was simply to create controversy, they didn't really do a good job at it.
Knowing how things work in student affairs at MU, here's how I'm guessing it went down. Students found the quote, thought it was nice, and the director rubber stamped it without looking into the author. Highly doubt there's anything nefarious here. They'll probably apologize for it and have something else on the wall.
-
I bypassed Bartlow and emailed President Lovell directly. I included an attachment with both the WIKI and another article about Chesimard. I hope he had no knowledge of this honoring mural and of what Chesimard past history consisted of. Just a disgrace.
-
Tolerance, in this country disguised as freedom of expression, is just a disgrace.
-
Knowing how things work in student affairs at MU, here's how I'm guessing it went down. Students found the quote, thought it was nice, and the director rubber stamped it without looking into the author. Highly doubt there's anything nefarious here. They'll probably apologize for it and have something else on the wall.
That's possible, I guess. But if I had to wager, it would be that the students view her as a revolutionary in the same way that, say, Che Guevara is viewed. I mean who paints a mural of someone without at least checking Wikipedia to find out a bit about the person first? My bet is that they knew her history. Indeed, her history is what gives those quotes so much power.
-
That's possible, I guess. But if I had to wager, it would be that the students view her as a revolutionary in the same way that, say, Che Guevara is viewed. I mean who paints a mural of someone without at least checking Wikipedia to find out a bit about the person first? My bet is that they knew her history. Indeed, her history is what gives those quotes so much power.
+1
Please don't be naive to think this are misguided unknowing children ... they knew who she was and what she stood for. They picked her for a specific reason. My guess is they want to attract attention to themselves with outrageous statements.
-
You think they are doing something to generate interest? Ironic.
-
You think they are doing something to generate interest? Ironic.
LOL...
-
You think they are doing something to generate interest? Ironic.
That is what radicals do.
-
So, you're a radical?
-
Most of you think I am because you have this false belief about clicks or some sort thing that I still do not understand.
(Which started was taken from a comment I made that many threads have bad titles here and I did not know what half the threads were about. When I said I like more descriptive titles use them to get people to open my threads, it morphed into "I like clicks" or "I want clicks" or whatever the incorrect interpretation of that comment is this week. By the way, it is not even measurable.)
Remember Hiroshima? Another epic idea that was wrong and had zero basis in reality. How many here still believe this bull? Anytime any consensus about anything forms here, just assume it wrong, which is why I'd like all of you to agree on investment advice so I can do the opposite.)
-
David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke 5h5 hours ago
@SykesCharlie We will reassess our relationship with MU in light of their insensitivity to slain law enforcement officers.
View conversation 38 retweets 29 favorites
Reply Retweeted38 Favorite29 Follow
More
-
IAnd if this mural is not addressed, it will be forgotten because their next statement will be even more outrageous. So draw the line now.
Ah, the infamous Domino Theory.
Ask 50,000+ dead American kids how that worked out.
-
The only new things in this world is history you don't know. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. We've all heard these. I would add "Son, do you have any idea how hard you are going to have to work to make an original mistake." (Lt. Eugene Grzegorski)
Young radicals say (paint) outlandish things without clearly thinking through the consequences of their actions. In the social media age, these stupid things get wound up and built up into something more. In the end, this will come down. A few people will think it is more than it is. Try to whip it into a frenzy and proof of something. All it is proof of is that young people say and do things that challenge the establishment. Sometimes they work. Sometimes, they are just tacky and wrong.
-
David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke 5h5 hours ago
@SykesCharlie We will reassess our relationship with MU in light of their insensitivity to slain law enforcement officers.
View conversation 38 retweets 29 favorites
Reply Retweeted38 Favorite29 Follow
More
Sultan, still think it's a bad idea for Lovell to address this publicly?
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/seton-hall-priest-says-he-was-fired-for-supporting-no-h8/ar-BBjSAqH?ocid=iehp
Will Seton Hall survive?
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/seton-hall-priest-says-he-was-fired-for-supporting-no-h8/ar-BBjSAqH?ocid=iehp
Will Seton Hall survive?
Marquette (and Lovell) choosing to celebrate and honor a cop killer is on a whole different level.
-
Someone should have 'splaned things to them before this was approved. Not a god thing for the university after the previous kerfluffle.
-
Ah, the infamous Domino Theory.
Ask 50,000+ dead American kids how that worked out.
First the GSRC wanted to have their "Femsex" seminar, which was nothing but a porn show on campus. The administration pulled funding for it. In response, they put up a mural of a violent left wing cop-killer. The dominos have already started falling. It's now a statement of fact, not an opinion.
This group is not going away quietly. This is going to get really mess and will very quickly. And it is because this is what they want. They are a bunch of radicalized left-wing homosexuals. Do not confuse them with your typical BusAd major hitting parties on a Saturday. This is entire different set of people on campus.
-
First the GSRC wanted to have their "Femsex" seminar, which was nothing but a porn show on campus. The administration pulled funding for it. In response, they put up a mural of a violent left wing cop-killer. The dominos have already started falling. It's now a statement of fact, not an opinion.
So now your theory is that they put up this mural "in response" to the cancellation of the Femsex Seminar...you know...that was cancelled TWO YEARS ago?
This group is not going away quietly. This is going to get really mess and will very quickly. And it is because this is what they want. They are a bunch of radicalized left-wing homosexuals. Do not confuse them with your typical BusAd major hitting parties on a Saturday. This is entire different set of people on campus.
I know.
They are overrunning campus.
The administration is helpless.
(http://i.qkme.me/3rnvk6.jpg)
-
Why is this a surprise, the universities in this country have hired people like Bill Ayers, James Kilgore, etc, etc. A mural....eh. Probably give him an honorary degree soon.
-
Marquette (and Lovell) choosing to celebrate and honor a cop killer is on a whole different level.
Pulled that one out of you a$$ - and it really needs to go back where you got it.
Lovell chose to honor a cop killer? Really? Once the debate gets that stupid, why bother?
-
Pulled that one out of you a$$ - and it really needs to go back where you got it.
Lovell chose to honor a cop killer? Really? Once the debate gets that stupid, why bother?
An official Marquette University Facebook post celebrated it (first post above).
-
This issue will just be picking up steam. Jim Palmer is the Exec Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Assn.
Jim Palmer @JimPalmerWI 3h3 hours ago
Marquette U. once changed its mascot so as to not offend, but now honors cop killer & "domestic terrorist" w/ mural. http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/05/marquettes-gender-and-sexuality.html?m=1 …
-
An official Marquette University Facebook post celebrated it (first post above).
Lovell runs every Marquette social media account and personally authorizes every decoration in every campus building before it goes up.
Duh. Everybody knows that.
By the way, whatever happened to all the academic freedom fighters? Or does their cry only go up in defense of all-important academic pursuits like calling out students?
-
By the way, whatever happened to all the academic freedom fighters? Or does their cry only go up in defense of all-important academic pursuits like calling out students?
You really don't see a difference between a personal blog and university property? Oh and no one has been fired yet, nor is anyone demanding that someone be fired.
-
An official Marquette University Facebook post celebrated it (first post above).
I wouldn't blame Lovell for the post, but his administration should be the one getting it unposted and issuing a mea culpa \ clarifying statement.
The fact that it wants to fire McAdams for his comments and applauds this a-hole looks terrible for the university.
$2M reward
http://www.njsp.org/news/pdf/pr050213_chesimard_eng.pdf
Cool to see the exposure. I say we bring her back, make her a prof.
https://www.facebook.com/GSRCMarquette/photos/pb.267616383349201.-2207520000.1431906002./703178749792960/?type=1&theater
http://twitchy.com/2015/05/16/marquette-university-honors-70s-cop-killer-prison-escapee-assata-shakur-with-mural/
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/17/catholic-university-honors-cop-killer-and-catches-hell-205375
It's on about 100 sites now. It will be picked up nationally I'm sure in the next few days.
-
You really don't see a difference between a personal blog and university property? Oh and no one has been fired yet, nor is anyone demanding that someone be fired.
Actually, no, I don't see the difference, not when the person behind the "personal blog" is a well-known Marquette employee who devotes a large part of his personal blog to Marquette and Marquette issues.
Are you suggesting academic freedom is only academic freedom off-campus? Or that academic freedom applies more to a personal blog than it does to what happens within the confines of the university?
Just to be clear, I think this mural is dumb, offensive, in poor taste, obviously not well thought-out and ought to be removed.
But I can't help but chuckle to see some of McAdams' defenders screeching like angry pterodactyls over this.
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
-
Tolerance, in this country disguised as freedom of expression, is just a disgrace.
Hell yes....but that makes us racists Doc....don't you know better.
-
Hell yes....but that makes us racists Doc....don't you know better.
Do you ever get tired of nailing yourself to a cross?
-
Actually, no, I don't see the difference, not when the person behind the "personal blog" is a well-known Marquette employee who devotes a large part of his personal blog to Marquette and Marquette issues.
Are you suggesting academic freedom is only academic freedom off-campus? Or that academic freedom applies more to a personal blog than it does to what happens within the confines of the university?
Just to be clear, I think this mural is dumb, offensive, in poor taste, obviously not well thought-out and ought to be removed.
But I can't help but chuckle to see some of McAdams' defenders screeching like angry pterodactyls over this.
When a professor comes out and says something silly (see Duke poli sci prof in the New York Times comments section, just a few days ago), the university can make a public condemnation. But that's all that the university can do (again see the most recent Duke case). The university must respect the professor's right to say it because that right is guaranteed with tenure.
This mural, on the other hand, is different. How so? The university can not only condemn it, but can actively take steps to remove it without breaching any contract. 'Academic freedom' is not some arbitrary notion created by "academic freedom fighters" on MUScoop.
I am one of the McAdams defenders who is also thoroughly disappointed in this mural. You see this as an inconsistency, but it is not. Go back and read my first post in this thread. I saw this mural, was disappointed, but wanted to first make sure that it was in a public area of the university first. If this mural were in, say, a professor's office (or a more realistic hypothetical example, a huge poster on the wall), then I would defend the right of the professor to keep it up
-
It's on about 100 sites now. It will be picked up nationally I'm sure in the next few days.
What do you mean "will be"? It was all over Fox News this morning.
-
What do you mean "will be"? It was all over Fox News this morning.
Sorry, I don't watch much Fox News. I was away at a hockey game today as well. Didn't see it. Thanks.
-
Marquette has released a response:
Our university’s senior leadership just became aware of a mural that was created and displayed in a remote area of campus. This is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University. It is being removed immediately. We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the mural and will take appropriate action.
http://news.marquette.edu/news-releases/marquette-university-statement-may-17-2015/
-
Marquette has released a response:
Our university’s senior leadership just became aware of a mural that was created and displayed in a remote area of campus. This is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University. It is being removed immediately. We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the mural and will take appropriate action.
http://news.marquette.edu/news-releases/marquette-university-statement-may-17-2015/
Oooooh, heads gone roll!!
-
And when made aware, the appropriate actions are taken and it becomes a minor footnote about some young campus radicals who did something dumb.
-
And when made aware, the appropriate actions are taken and it becomes a minor footnote about some young campus radicals who did something dumb.
I'm still in wait and see mode. I'd like to hear the "how" it happened and what steps are taken to avoid in the future... including potentially addressing the group(s) involved.
-
I'm still in wait and see mode. I'd like to hear the "how" it happened and what steps are taken to avoid in the future... including potentially addressing the group(s) involved.
The mural was on the wall of an office on the 4th floor of AMU that didn't get a lot of traffic. Mu guess is that none of the bigwigs had seen that mural since it was put up in March, or didn't know who Assata Shakur was (if you had asked me, I would have guessed it was Tupac's mom).
Per a rep I know at OMC, the response was delayed because everyone was at graduation ceremonies this weekend.
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
In the not too distant future, I hope you can give a more complete, nuanced version.
-
The mural was on the wall of an office on the 4th floor of AMU that didn't get a lot of traffic. Mu guess is that none of the bigwigs had seen that mural since it was put up in March, or didn't know who Assata Shakur was (if you had asked me, I would have guessed it was Tupac's mom).
Per a rep I know at OMC, the response was delayed because everyone was at graduation ceremonies this weekend.
Fookin' mural has no place at MU. Not even on the wall of stall #3 at the Old Gym, ai na?
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
Congrats on your graduation, Chitown. Could you please translate? Thanks.
-
BTW, I do want to make it clear that I think this mural needs to go. While the quote might be nice and all, and Mussolini made the trains run on time, it is simply the wrong thing to do.
-
Cause its all about you.
Actually, on the day you graduate, it is.
-
Hell yes....but that makes us racists Doc....don't you know better.
It is what it is. Just gotta have the penis to tell it like it is, hey?
-
Marquette has released a response:
Our university’s senior leadership just became aware of a mural that was created and displayed in a remote area of campus. This is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University. It is being removed immediately. We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the mural and will take appropriate action.
http://news.marquette.edu/news-releases/marquette-university-statement-may-17-2015/
OK perfect. This is exactly how it should have been handled.
I guess I should keep my eyes peeled for the radicalized homosexuals that Heisentroll said were going to chain themselves to the door.
-
Marquette has released a response:
Our university’s senior leadership just became aware of a mural that was created and displayed in a remote area of campus. This is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University. It is being removed immediately. We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the mural and will take appropriate action.
http://news.marquette.edu/news-releases/marquette-university-statement-may-17-2015/
Victory
-
Fookin' mural has no place at MU. Not even on the wall of stall #3 at the Old Gym, ai na?
Here it is in smelly vapors,
Someone stole the toilet paper.
How much longer shall I linger
Till I'm forced to use my finger?
ai na?
-
I'm still in wait and see mode. I'd like to hear the "how" it happened and what steps are taken to avoid in the future... including potentially addressing the group(s) involved.
One question that needs to be asked is how Marquette PR didn't know about this despite the fact that a seemingly official Facebook account mentioned it during the entire Spring semester.
So either, they are covering their azz right now, or they aren't monitoring these accounts regularly...either one of these is a big problem.
-
Actually, no, I don't see the difference, not when the person behind the "personal blog" is a well-known Marquette employee who devotes a large part of his personal blog to Marquette and Marquette issues.
Are you suggesting academic freedom is only academic freedom off-campus? Or that academic freedom applies more to a personal blog than it does to what happens within the confines of the university?
Just to be clear, I think this mural is dumb, offensive, in poor taste, obviously not well thought-out and ought to be removed.
But I can't help but chuckle to see some of McAdams' defenders screeching like angry pterodactyls over this.
In law, there is a distinction between permitting private speech and subsidizing private speech. It is perfectly rational to think that the university should not step on profs when they exercise their personal speech rights, but not be forced to support everything and anything that a student wants to paint on the university's walls. There is a pretty blatant distinction here.
-
Schools out. Students are gone.
Go in and repaint it.
Just like those b@stards did to our Dark Side of the Moon painting on 10 south over the summer of 1980.
Those are probably the same sonsuvbitches who also painted over Traffic's On The Road and YesSongs on Schroeder 10N! I mean, like, what the f#ck?
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0000/047/MI0000047595.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
(http://www.technologytell.com/hometech/files/2012/06/yessongs-innersleeve.jpeg)
-
One question that needs to be asked is how Marquette PR didn't know about this despite the fact that a seemingly official Facebook account mentioned it during the entire Spring semester.
So either, they are covering their azz right now, or they aren't monitoring these accounts regularly...either one of these is a big problem.
Sultan, if I had to guess the Facebook posts aren't always put through by the PR department. I've seen that at Fortune 500 companies where it isn't, and it bites them in the arse. It gets worse as you go down the line with Instagram, Twitter, etc. Houston Rockets just fired their social media guy because these kids, and usually they are kids, are so into instant publish without thinking through what they are doing.
I've had to deal with it on my current team where I have nothing but 20 somethings. Smart people, but on our Social pages they want to post certain things and I've had to veto about 15% of it because they aren't thinking it all the way through. What they view as a positive role model, many others don't. What they view as "just", many others don't. So on and so forth. I have no doubt this whole thing was meant to harmless, but that's the world we live in.
-
Sultan, if I had to guess the Facebook posts aren't always put through by the PR department. I've seen that at Fortune 500 companies where it isn't, and it bites them in the arse. It gets worse as you go down the line with Instagram, Twitter, etc. Houston Rockets just fired their social media guy because these kids, and usually they are kids, are so into instant publish without thinking through what they are doing.
I've had to deal with it on my current team where I have nothing but 20 somethings. Smart people, but on our Social pages they want to post certain things and I've had to veto about 15% of it because they aren't thinking it all the way through. What they view as a positive role model, many others don't. What they view as "just", many others don't. So on and so forth. I have no doubt this whole thing was meant to harmless, but that's the world we live in.
At the university where I work, we monitor all of the official twitter and facebook accounts. So things like what the Rockets twitter-guy did can be caught right away.
The issue I have here is that while this mural is in an out of the way location, it's existence and the quote were mentioned on Facebook multiple times by the "Gender and Sexuality Resource Center" back in March. Someone in PR dropped the ball here.
-
a bunch of radicalized left-wing homosexuals
WTFO?
-
At the university where I work, we monitor all of the official twitter and facebook accounts. So things like what the Rockets twitter-guy did can be caught right away.
The issue I have here is that while this mural is in an out of the way location, it's existence and the quote were mentioned on Facebook multiple times by the "Gender and Sexuality Resource Center" back in March. Someone in PR dropped the ball here.
There are literally hundreds of Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn accounts that are attached to Marquette in some way. The most important ones run through the Office of Management and Communication and are officially signed off on, but I believe the rest are the responsibility of the office or organization it represents. I am pretty sure that Tim Cigelske, the Director of Social Media, is "friends" (or whatever) with most of these accounts, but expecting him to react to this post would mean assuming he read all of the words on the mural and knew who Assata Shakur was.
The Gender and Sexuality Resource Center is only followed by 342 people currently, and who knows how many of those signed up in the past 24 hours? It wasn't exactly @MarquetteMBB in terms of popularity, so I am not surprised it took this long for someone to discover it.
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
Hmmm....this makes no fuc king sense whatsoever. But whatever those people did it certainly fuc king pissed you off
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
???
Are you in that facebook photo? Not sure I understand.
-
???
Are you in that facebook photo? Not sure I understand.
https://www.facebook.com/MarquetteU
-
https://www.facebook.com/MarquetteU
Thanks
-
Actually, on the day you graduate, it is.
Actually, it isn't.
On graduation day when I did the raise the right hand thing and was commissioned a 2LT by my Maj Gen father he shook my hand and said, "I expect you to take care of your men." No, "atta boy!" No, "I'm proud of you!" Just, "I expect you to take care of your men."
Years later I asked him about that and he said graduation day was significant only because it was recognition that I was ready for greater responsibility. I had USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training starting in a few weeks - a program with a 70% washout rate. I hadn't accomplished anything that meant something tangible for the greater good.
As I reflect back I know he was right. What he was telling me was build on this.
-
As I reflect back I know he was right. What he was telling me was build on this.
Smart man
-
OK perfect. This is exactly how it should have been handled.
I guess I should keep my eyes peeled for the radicalized homosexuals that Heisentroll said were going to chain themselves to the door.
Sultan, you have yet to get anything right in this post.
* you said this would not be a national story, that took about 20 minutes to get wrong
* you said the university should handled this quietly, that took about 2 hours to get wrong.
Are you still sticking to your claim it was unknowing children that put up this mural merely because they thought the artwork was pretty?
And, given you uber left-wing political views, along with you collecting a university paycheck, why am I not surprised you mock me about this. You think the radical homosexuals that put up these types of murals are typical average boring students. Because from your point of view, they are.
-
the radical homosexuals
Beware!
(https://oneway2day.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/agenda-homo-plan-change-america_thumb.jpg?w=536&h=396)
-
Sultan, you have yet to get anything right in this post.
* you said this would not be a national story, that took about 20 minutes to get wrong
* you said the university should handled this quietly, that took about 2 hours to get wrong.
Are you still sticking to your claim it was unknowing children that put up this mural merely because they thought the artwork was pretty?
And, given you uber left-wing political views, along with you collecting a university paycheck, why am I not surprised you mock me about this. You think the radical homosexuals that put up these types of murals are typical average boring students. Because from your point of view, they are.
Stop acting like young people being radical, saying/doing something offensive to their elders is something new, something to be feared, or widespread. That group's facebook page had 342 followers. Which means that they were hardly mainstream. And now its over.
-
Sultan, you have yet to get anything right in this post.
* you said this would not be a national story, that took about 20 minutes to get wrong
* you said the university should handled this quietly, that took about 2 hours to get wrong.
Are you still sticking to your claim it was unknowing children that put up this mural merely because they thought the artwork was pretty?
And, given you uber left-wing political views, along with you collecting a university paycheck, why am I not surprised you mock me about this. You think the radical homosexuals that put up these types of murals are typical average boring students. Because from your point of view, they are.
Yes I was wrong that it would not be a big deal.
However it was handled quietly. Remember that was in comparison to your idea that "Lovell can and should make a speech decrying it, embarrassing those that thought this was a good idea..." Sending out a short press release and painting it over is quiet in comparison.
And I am going to keep my eyes peeled to the news for your prediction that "GSRC members chain themselves to AMU door 425 to prevent it from being painted over." (Don't count on it.)
And of course there was your suggestion that they did this in response to cancelling the Femsex Seminar. Which was completely not true.
So I think all in all, I got a lot more right than you did. Per usual.
-
nice-university of moscow by the lake and uc-berkely are getting jealous-when can i get my t-shirt? i'd put that in teal, but i don't think it's that far fetched. marquette is just trying to do a little catching up. next, re-naming the mall after fill-in-the-blank socialist radical. maybe a vote like they did for our school nickname. this isn't going to end well
-
There are still so many unanswered questions with this. Law enforcement is rightly PO'd and wants answers.
Who knew this despicable mural was there and approved it?
Hilarious that it was Prof McAdams who broke the story and brought this to light.
-
nice-university of moscow by the lake and uc-berkely are getting jealous-when can i get my t-shirt? i'd put that in teal, but i don't think it's that far fetched. marquette is just trying to do a little catching up. next, re-naming the mall after fill-in-the-blank socialist radical. maybe a vote like they did for our school nickname. this isn't going to end well
Oh come on, this was an isolated incident. Yes, it was stupid and looks terrible, but I'm guessing this got approved at a very low level by someone that on staff or faculty that wasn't even born when the killing occurred. This was a very small group of provocateur students that slipped on by the administration.
Maybe it shows my ignorance, but I had never heard of Shakur prior to this story breaking. Granted, I'd like to think I would have googled her if asked to approve the mural....but this happened in 1973, I could see where anyone 40 or less could have missed who she was if just signing off on a bunch of stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the students that requested the mural just googled "female empowerment quotes" and got those two quotes without any research and decided to put it on the wall.
It's bad form and a horrible message but lets not going lighting our hair on fire.
-
I know that there's an investigation going on now to determine who knew and approved the mural.
-
JSOnline reporting GSRC facebook post on March 24th thanking the AKA's initiation of the mural.
Of course, it had to be a frat that's responsible for this. Probably some sort of prank.
-
You know what fuc king sickens me. The fact that people have been commenting on a photo of my and my friends that marquette posted on Facebook to make a political point by bringing up this issue. Fu ck those people for fuc king putting a bad taste in my mouth on my graduation day.
I'll step in as Chitown's anger translator:
"People on Facebook know I have an inability to control my temper so they decided to troll me by making references to the Shakur mural on photos showing me and my friends in Marquette gear. Being unable to isolate my anger it was put me in a foul mood for my graduation weekend. Thanks trolls who I let troll me"
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/DGwV0DcoEUJBm/200.gif)
-
JSOnline reporting GSRC facebook post on March 24th thanking the AKA's initiation of the mural.
Of course, it had to be a frat that's responsible for this. Probably some sort of prank.
Alpha Kappa Alpha is a sorority with a predominantly African American membership.
-
Alpha Kappa Alpha is a sorority with a predominantly African American membership.
That's sexist and racist. A black woman has every bit the right to prank that a white man does.
-
Just saw this and its absolutely disgusting. I'm sure this campus organization could've found any of a number of different people to paint a mural of before they came to this cop killer. College campuses are designed for the free flow of ideas, regardless of their origin on the political, religious, or socioeconomic scale, but painting an image a person who callously executed a public servant goes well beyond the acceptable norms.
I love my alma mater, but this is indefensible and it seems judging by Marquette's statement they agree. Someone should be fired and some form of oversight should be put in place, this kinda crap just cannot happen. For whatever reason, Marquette is incredibly proficient at shooting themselves in the foot with controversy.
-
That's sexist and racist. A black woman has every bit the right to prank that a white man does.
;D ;D
-
I get that college kids sometimes take a weird ideological detour during the college years, but it is the responsibility of paid faculty/administrators/staff to vet things like this.
Supposedly, adult professionals who have some level of critical and analytical thinking are working with these student groups. They don't need to censor anything, but probably would head off a lot of PR disasters like this one by asking students what is the complete background behind this person and within that background what are issues that will detract from the message you are trying to get out? Do those issues overshadow what you are trying to say?
And if staff can't see why Skakur's actions don't bother most people then that is a larger problem that needs to be dealt with by higher administration.
-
I get that college kids sometimes take a weird ideological detour during the college years, but it is the responsibility of paid faculty/administrators/staff to vet things like this.
Supposedly, adult professionals who have some level of critical and analytical thinking are working with these student groups. They don't need to censor anything, but probably would head off a lot of PR disasters like this one by asking students what is the complete background behind this person and within that background what are issues that will detract from the message you are trying to get out? Do those issues overshadow what you are trying to say?
And if staff can't see why Skakur's actions don't bother most people then that is a larger problem that needs to be dealt with by higher administration.
It would not surprise me in the least if this mural was put up (at least in part) to intentionally antagonize the administration, or to see how long it would stay up before anyone really noticed. If whoever approved this honestly believed the PTB wouldn't have a problem with it, then they should be fired simply on the grounds of stupidity.
-
It would not surprise me in the least if this mural was put up (at least in part) to intentionally antagonize the administration, or to see how long it would stay up before anyone really noticed. If whoever approved this honestly believed the PTB wouldn't have a problem with it, then they should be fired simply on the grounds of stupidity.
Chick's not just another pretty face around here.
-
Whoever put up the mural, is that the same group that was arrested for laying down in Wisconsin Ave and displayed the Black Lives Matter banner at the Villanova game?
-
What does assata shakur have to do with gender and sexuality resources?
Don't know about you guys but I'm looking for a flight to Cuba to do me some assata hunting-would that $2 million be considered income or capital gains ;D
-
Ass for short, a'inal?
-
No doubt McAdams intentionally blogged about this during commencement weekend despite knowing about for a while. He's going out guns a blazing. Also wouldn't want to be the persons who decided to authorize this. Not sure who approved it but I'm guessing the MU leaders were unaware and are not happy
-
MU says that the mural has already been taken down. They took it down last night.
-
No doubt McAdams intentionally blogged about this during commencement weekend despite knowing about for a while. He's going out guns a blazing. Also wouldn't want to be the persons who decided to authorize this. Not sure who approved it but I'm guessing the MU leaders were unaware and are not happy
How do you know McAdams knew about it for a while? Did he blog about it before and then drop it?
If you don't have proof he knew about it before and said nothing until now, You seem to be implying he is some sort of Hippocrate for waiting until he this became news and piling on. Yet at the same time you are rationalizing that an official Facebook post praising this mural was a bureaucratic is snafu. How do we know that official MU did initially like and praise this mural until Sunday when the media jumped on it and then official MU quickly reversed itself ran over with a bucket of paint to covered it up and acted like they knew nothing about it?
Why is the intention assigned to McAdams nerfarious while the intention assigned to official MU innocent and rationalizing? Are you letting personal political views get in the way here?
-
OMG! Remind me again when basketball season starts......Please, please please.
-
According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur
Assata Olugbala Shakur (born JoAnne Deborah Byron on July 16, 1947[1]), whose married name was Chesimard,[2][3] is an African-American activist and member of the former Black Panther Party (BPP) and Black Liberation Army (BLA). Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was accused of several crimes and was the subject of a multistate manhunt.[4][5]
In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she was accused of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulting Trooper James Harper.[6] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[6] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[7]
Shakur was incarcerated in several prisons in the 1970s. She escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba in 1984 after living as a fugitive for a few years, and received political asylum. She has been living in Cuba ever since. Since May 2, 2005, the FBI has classified her as a domestic terrorist and offered a $1 million reward for assistance in her capture. On May 2, 2013, the FBI added her to the Most Wanted Terrorist List; the first woman to be listed.[8] On the same day, the New Jersey Attorney General offered to match the FBI reward, increasing the total reward for her capture to $2 million.[9]
I remember that day like it was yesterday as it occurred only 2 miles from my parents home. It took me more than 2 hours to get to work that morning as the turnpike was shut down for hours and all traffic was diverted to local roadways. It saddens me that my alma mater would celebrate a cold blooded murderer such as her. My charitable contributions will be going else where rather than support this shameful disdain for decency .
-
OMG! Remind me again when basketball season starts......Please, please please.
The "subpar" response when it is already on the superbar.
-
I remember that day like it was yesterday as it occurred only 2 miles from my parents home. It took me more than 2 hours to get to work that morning as the turnpike was shut down for hours and all traffic was diverted to local roadways. It saddens me that my alma mater would celebrate a cold blooded murderer such as her. My charitable contributions will be going else where rather than support this shameful disdain for decency .
Dude calm down. It was removed today.
-
Dude calm down. It was removed today.
Comrade:
Your defense of outgerous left-wing positions is maddening. You were more worked up about McAdams than this.
-
Comrade:
Your defense of outgerous left-wing positions is maddening. You were more worked up about McAdams than this.
I never defended the mural.
Your inability to read is maddening because you keep demeaning my Marquette degree.
-
I think the moral was idiotic and probably an over site by anyone with a Marquette paycheck but Adams looks like a smug dbag on Fox News. He has that smug look of feigning outrage but yet excited to bash administration.
-
I think the moral was idiotic and probably an over site by anyone with a Marquette paycheck but Adams looks like a smug dbag on Fox News. He has that smug look of feigning outrage but yet excited to bash administration.
Thanks for laying out your political views.
-
Apparently the sorority didn't research her enough...Wiki is your friend.
http://fox6now.com/2015/05/18/mural-featuring-one-of-fbis-most-wanted-terrorists-removed-at-mu-sorority-says-proper-research-wasnt-done/
-
Thanks for laying out your political views.
Because yours aren't laid out constantly.
-
I think the moral was idiotic and probably an over site by anyone with a Marquette paycheck but Adams looks like a smug dbag on Fox News. He has that smug look of feigning outrage but yet excited to bash administration.
fine, if you were just fired from a company for essentially doing the same thing, flipped, how would you look? happy? payback is a beetch-heyna? if it weren't for mcadams shining the light of day on these "do-gooders", that mural would probably still be up. does anyone here believe marquette would have taken it upon themselves to find and remove this mural? ...and the horizontally-challenged lady is not quite ready to sing just yet. we need more john mcadams within the university to provide balance to these far left wing attempts to spread their "crap". this radical group just showed their true colors and was originally formed to appease their beetching about the rescinding of the hiring of one professor o'brien. so they form this group under the guise of sexual diversity, get this money as a pacifier and what do they do with it? push the envelope? the mural has nothing to do with gender blah blah. note the timing-gee, just when it appears to be in vogue to bash or even celebrate cop-abuse? (check jayzee funding the release of baltimore protesters) the groups formation was just a militant foot in the door to proceed with more of their left wing agenda. watch-any criticism on them, and you will see a barrage of accusations- you are anti-this and a denier-that, and fill-in-the-blank-phobic and the ever popular...drum roll please...RACE CARD. hello al sharton; he just obtained a new biness account. they will be like that bad neighbor ya can't get rid of unlike a tenured conservative professor-that was easy. just watch-they may stay under the radar for a while, but just when ya think all's calm-they're baaaaccck. welcome to the university of marquette-berkeley/midwest(UM-B/MW)-this is not our fathers university anymore. gotta go and find me another tax-write-off :-[
-
I never defended the mural.
Your inability to read is maddening because you keep demeaning my Marquette degree.
When a group fails to do thorough research on an individual before they "honor" someone perhaps that degree they "earned" should be demeaned. I wonder why they didn't honor Dr. King after all being male is a gender.
-
When a group fails to do thorough research on an individual before they "honor" someone perhaps that degree they "earned" should be demeaned. I wonder why they didn't honor Dr. King after all being male is a gender.
Hey, you aren't going to get an argument out of me on that one. I think this was a bad idea with very poor oversight from the beginning. Marquette handled it very quickly once people with more sense figured it out.
-
It would not surprise me in the least if this mural was put up (at least in part) to intentionally antagonize the administration, or to see how long it would stay up before anyone really noticed. If whoever approved this honestly believed the PTB wouldn't have a problem with it, then they should be fired simply on the grounds of stupidity.
I wonder how long a Confederate Flag would remain hanging in a less traveled area of the student union. Two months before it came to the administrations attention? I think not.
-
I wonder how long a Confederate Flag would remain hanging in a less traveled area of the student union. Two months before it came to the administrations attention? I think not.
You are probably correct. A confederate flag is a much easier symbol to identify by sight. If I saw a mural with a quote from someone whose name I didn't recognize, my first thought wouldn't be "I hope she's not a terrorist."
-
I remember that day like it was yesterday as it occurred only 2 miles from my parents home. It took me more than 2 hours to get to work that morning as the turnpike was shut down for hours and all traffic was diverted to local roadways. It saddens me that my alma mater would celebrate a cold blooded murderer such as her. My charitable contributions will be going else where rather than support this shameful disdain for decency .
I'd ask you to reconsider. MU's senior leadership was as appalled as you were. There's no doubt in my mind that this group chooses to push the envelope every chance they get. I also think it's true that McAdams blogged for maximum impact and succeeded. But the characterization that MU somehow celebrates Shakur's viewpoint is inaccurate. Those who are trying to paint this administration as some far left leaning Berkeley-style team couldn't be further from the truth.
-
I'd ask you to reconsider. MU's senior leadership was as appalled as you were. There's no doubt in my mind that this group chooses to push the envelope every chance they get. I also think it's true that McAdams blogged for maximum impact and succeeded. But the characterization that MU somehow celebrates Shakur's viewpoint is inaccurate. Those who are trying to paint this administration as some far left leaning Berkeley-style team couldn't be further from the truth.
I agree with this assessment -- if fault lives after the news cycle ends then fair ball to make the decision you see fit. However, if you make a decision to pull support based on a few days worth of articles, you are doing a disservice to our University. Personally my path through Marquette called for a higher burden of proof than MU Scoop and someone who's self interest is to fan flames.
-
I wonder how long a Confederate Flag would remain hanging in a less traveled area of the student union. Two months before it came to the administrations attention? I think not.
Everyone knows what a Confederate Flag represents. How many people knew who Assata Shakur was last Friday?
-
Everyone knows what a Confederate Flag represents. How many people knew who Assata Shakur was last Friday?
A club, a sorority, an academic adjudication, and MU social media were involved in this. The club has a sponsor. The sorority is overseen by the Office of Greek Life. The suspended faculty member with a voice and an academic and civil case. MU has oversight to its public message. A simple Wike search reveals a long rap sheet. Fail
For a small yet influential donor segment, MU's first lay president's bubble has popped. I hope his administration has some awareness of the damage control needed here beyond this screwing of the pooch. His administration has bungled this badly, and pretending this has gone away or its McAdams fault isn't going to help him. This is not a national press issue as it will die down. This is an alumni and donor perception issue that will spread and build. Words matter. (Note: I am not speaking for myself)
-
A club, a sorority, an academic adjudication, and MU social media were involved in this. The club has a sponsor. The sorority is overseen by the Office of Greek Life. The suspended faculty member with a voice and an academic and civil case. MU has oversight to its public message. A simple Wike search reveals a long rap sheet. Fail
For a small yet influential donor segment, MU's first lay president's bubble has popped. I hope his administration has some awareness of the damage control needed here beyond this screwing of the pooch. His administration has bungled this badly, and pretending this has gone away or its McAdams fault isn't going to help him. This is not a national press issue as it will die down. This is an alumni and donor perception issue that will spread and build. Words matter. (Note: I am not speaking for myself)
So let me see if I understand this. There are influential donors that are pissed at Lovell because he didn't know every minutiae of what was going on on campus and are willing to redirect their money within 48 hours of this story surfacing without giving the administration opportunity to act?
He is now launching an investigation as to how such an offensive and stupid display got put up. We'll see how he reacts to that investigation. I find it very hard to believe that donors (as successful as they must be to be so critical to MU) would react so quickly and definitively with so limited knowledge of what actually transpired.
Other than this and the McAdams situation, what other issues do these donors have with the administration?
Lastly, I think it needs to be reiterated that the people involved in this mural more than likely weren't even born when the Shakur murder occurred. Not excusing them not doing research, but it's not like this person is very well known and something somebody just knows. I think who ever in the administration that approved this needs to be fired, but let's apply Hanlon's Razor to this.
-
A club, a sorority, an academic adjudication, and MU social media were involved in this. The club has a sponsor. The sorority is overseen by the Office of Greek Life. The suspended faculty member with a voice and an academic and civil case. MU has oversight to its public message. A simple Wike search reveals a long rap sheet. Fail
For a small yet influential donor segment, MU's first lay president's bubble has popped. I hope his administration has some awareness of the damage control needed here beyond this screwing of the pooch. His administration has bungled this badly, and pretending this has gone away or its McAdams fault isn't going to help him. This is not a national press issue as it will die down. This is an alumni and donor perception issue that will spread and build. Words matter. (Note: I am not speaking for myself)
At what age do adults become so reactionary convinced that the slightest misstep will have extreme ramifications and begin to think that all the people in power evidently have never made a mistake when they were young so the youth must be held to that same standard. I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
-
So let me see if I understand this. There are influential donors that are pissed at Lovell because he didn't know every minutiae of what was going on on campus and are willing to redirect their money within 48 hours of this story surfacing without giving the administration opportunity to act?
He is now launching an investigation as to how such an offensive and stupid display got put up. We'll see how he reacts to that investigation. I find it very hard to believe that donors (as successful as they must be to be so critical to MU) would react so quickly and definitively with so limited knowledge of what actually transpired.
Other than this and the McAdams situation, what other issues do these donors have with the administration?
Lastly, I think it needs to be reiterated that the people involved in this mural more than likely weren't even born when the Shakur murder occurred. Not excusing them not doing research, but it's not like this person is very well known and something somebody just knows. I think who ever in the administration that approved this needs to be fired, but let's apply Hanlon's Razor to this.
Does MU have a Men studies program? If not, why not? What is the ratio of men/women students at MU?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09men-t.html?_r=0
-
At what age do adults become so reactionary convinced that the slightest misstep will have extreme ramifications and begin to think that all the people in power evidently have never made a mistake when they were young so the youth must be held to that same standard. I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
LOL.....I thought this was taught in liberalism 101....so I'd put it at age 18, when the indoctrination really gets cranking.
Bush knew.....remember.
-
LOL.....I thought this was taught in liberalism 101....so I'd put it at age 18, when the indoctrination really gets cranking.
Bush knew.....remember.
Maybe I'm still really tired and not in the mood to read into things but want to elaborate?
-
Maybe I'm still really tired and not in the mood to read into things but want to elaborate?
Don't bother, typical Chico's partisanship. The behavior you describe impacts all on the political spectrum and all adults in human life.
I'll admit to having the same issue from time to time, we all do even if we can't admit it. Humans have to process so much information that we can only process it from our point of view "effectively" therefore we are reacting within our personal experience which doesn't effectively translate to societal experience.
Side note, as society becomes more and more individualized I think it becomes much more difficult to identify areas of potential issue as well as predict what "outrage" will unite society in common frustration at an event/issue.
-
At what age do adults become so reactionary convinced that the slightest misstep will have extreme ramifications and begin to think that all the people in power evidently have never made a mistake when they were young so the youth must be held to that same standard. I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
This might be the wisest statement in this thread.
This has been said here before, but big donors aren't pulling donations over isolated incidents like this. If the Lovell administration makes repeated mistakes, and in the process pisses off donors, then you have a problem. But no one who was a significant donor on Friday is not one today because of this. Lovell handled it about as well as he could have.
Look, universities are open environments where students oftentimes lead initiatives like this. Students aren't the best decision makers, that is why they are supposed to be overseen by professionals who know better. When that system breaks down, stuff like this happens. It happens everywhere. Seriously Google up any institution of significant size and you will see some controversial story that administrators have to weather.
If donors can't understand that, they really probably shouldn't be donating to higher education to begin with.
-
Does MU have a Men studies program? If not, why not? What is the ratio of men/women students at MU?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09men-t.html?_r=0
They don't celebrate a White Pride Month either!!!
-
A club, a sorority, an academic adjudication, and MU social media were involved in this. The club has a sponsor. The sorority is overseen by the Office of Greek Life. The suspended faculty member with a voice and an academic and civil case. MU has oversight to its public message. A simple Wike search reveals a long rap sheet. Fail
For a small yet influential donor segment, MU's first lay president's bubble has popped. I hope his administration has some awareness of the damage control needed here beyond this screwing of the pooch. His administration has bungled this badly, and pretending this has gone away or its McAdams fault isn't going to help him. This is not a national press issue as it will die down. This is an alumni and donor perception issue that will spread and build. Words matter. (Note: I am not speaking for myself)
I don't know. We will see. I would be surprised.
-
Maybe I'm still really tired and not in the mood to read into things but want to elaborate?
Go back to the 1970's....what did he know and when did he know it.
This has been gotcha style tactics for a long long time, now used by all sides.
Do I think President Lovell had any clue what was going on with some mural? Hell no. Do I think that some goofy university admin type did and thought it was great......I have my beliefs on this, but they are only a guess and supported by any evidence...yet.
He just needs to clean it up and quickly, put people on notice that just because SOMEONE think it is cool that people are wearing Che or whomever on a t-shirt doesn't pass off as something the university should be endorsing or honoring. Whether that communication gets through to some of these people, is another story.
-
Do I think President Lovell had any clue what was going on with some mural? Hell no. Do I think that some goofy university admin type did and thought it was great......I have my beliefs on this, but they are only a guess and supported by any evidence...yet.
He just needs to clean it up and quickly, put people on notice that just because SOMEONE think it is cool that people are wearing Che or whomever on a t-shirt doesn't pass off as something the university should be endorsing or honoring. Whether that communication gets through to some of these people, is another story.
Bingo.
-
Everyone knows what a Confederate Flag represents. How many people knew who Assata Shakur was last Friday?
It's Tuesday and I still don't know.
Paint it over and lets move on.
-
Do I think President Lovell had any clue what was going on with some mural? Hell no. Do I think that some goofy university admin type did and thought it was great......I have my beliefs on this, but they are only a guess and supported by any evidence...yet.
Exactly. Do you think the President of a company that has 5,000 employees knows what some goof in the IT department has pinned up in his cubicle? Even if he posted it on Facebook?
-
Go back to the 1970's....what did he know and when did he know it.
This has been gotcha style tactics for a long long time, now used by all sides.
Do I think President Lovell had any clue what was going on with some mural? Hell no. Do I think that some goofy university admin type did and thought it was great......I have my beliefs on this, but they are only a guess and supported by any evidence...yet.
He just needs to clean it up and quickly, put people on notice that just because SOMEONE think it is cool that people are wearing Che or whomever on a t-shirt doesn't pass off as something the university should be endorsing or honoring. Whether that communication gets through to some of these people, is another story.
Bromigo I was directly saying blackheart was going a little crazy thinking big donors were going to pull their donations and are holding these kids to a standard that they never screwed up. I've already stated I think the mural was very poor taste. No donor a couple weeks ago is going to pull their donations now they know it was taken down and not in some front and center room where it would've been seen by everybody, and that it was likely a student mistake that got rubber stamped. My post wasn't trying to say anything other than blackheart was over reacting thinking all the donors were going to leave.
-
Bromigo I was directly saying blackheart was going a little crazy thinking big donors were going to pull their donations and are holding these kids to a standard that they never screwed up. I've already stated I think the mural was very poor taste. No donor a couple weeks ago is going to pull their donations now they know it was taken down and not in some front and center room where it would've been seen by everybody, and that it was likely a student mistake that got rubber stamped. My post wasn't trying to say anything other than blackheart was over reacting thinking all the donors were going to leave.
I don't doubt that some donors told Blackheart they were "considering" it.....that's called saber rattling and I'm sure if I was a big time donor I'd like to flex my muscle from time to time. It's a leverage play if anything from the donors, the next time there is an issue and they want it to land in their direction they can bring up this instance to influence Lovell their way.
I think Chicos is right, students were either intentionally trying to be controversial or were ignorant and thought they were pretty statements. Some mid to low level peon was either in on the pot stirring or was also ignorant/lazy and badaboom we have a very offensive mural on campus. Once it came to the attention of leadership it was handled very swiftly(it's already covered over).
Side note, if McAdams had wanted to be helpful instead of inflammatory he could have brought this to Lovell's attention privately and I'm pretty sure it would have been handled just as swiftly. Whatever sympathy I had for McAdam's plight has left me.
-
Side note, if McAdams had wanted to be helpful instead of inflammatory he could have brought this to Lovell's attention privately and I'm pretty sure it would have been handled just as swiftly. Whatever sympathy I had for McAdam's plight has left me.
I usually agree with you, 03, but why would you expect McAdams to be "helpful" to the guy who just fired him?
-
I usually agree with you, 03, but why would you expect McAdams to be "helpful" to the guy who just fired him?
If McAdams was not a "firebrand" as he claimed and just someone who wanted to help the university, here was his opportunity to do so.
I get it from a human nature standpoint, he took a swing at the place that just cut him down, but it doesn't help with his reputation as a rabble rouser which is what got him in trouble in the first place. He has created a prison of his own making.
-
you keep demeaning my Marquette degree.
Has your Marquette degree taken umbrage?
Personally, I find certain actions and behaviors by fellow alums cheapens or devalues my Marquette degree
-
If McAdams was not a "firebrand" as he claimed and just someone who wanted to help the university, here was his opportunity to do so.
I get it from a human nature standpoint, he took a swing at the place that just cut him down, but it doesn't help with his reputation as a rabble rouser which is what got him in trouble in the first place. He has created a prison of his own making.
It was a "See?", "I told you so", "Exhibit A", "Eureka!" public moment for a public man who had been very publicly fired. What does he owe the people who have very publicly declared him the enemy?
-
Comrade:
Your defense of outgerous left-wing positions is maddening. You were more worked up about McAdams than this.
This is why I said your earlier post was asinine because you've repeatedly insinuated that she is somehow associated with the entire left. I wonder how you, rocket surgeon, chicos or muwarrior69 would respond if the left posters spent half as much time as you guys do posting insulting claims from the extremists on your end of the political spectrum.
-
Quite frankly, all of this is moot until Marquette's most famous Gender & Sexuality studies graduate weighs in. Where are you Claire van Fossen?
Radical Feminist Lesbian. Gender and Sexuality Scholar. Community Activist. And Pin Up Vamp fueling the lascivious dreams of a thousand men.
Today's Renaissance Woman.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/0f/35/800f35411c835629228d9e817cc11ee6.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4f/0a/4c/4f0a4cccc8ebf1552ab666d4a440ef19.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d9/c0/db/d9c0dbadd0f511f17210da4fad9f2afd.jpg)
-
Leave it to Keefe to put the priorities back in order.
-
At what age do adults become so reactionary convinced that the slightest misstep will have extreme ramifications and begin to think that all the people in power evidently have never made a mistake when they were young so the youth must be held to that same standard. I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
Are you saying that Assata should be pardoned because we all made mistakes in our youth?
-
Radical Feminist Lesbian. Gender and Sexuality Scholar. Community Activist. And Pin Up Vamp fueling the lascivious dreams of a thousand men.
Tell me Keefe, how does one reconcile the former with the latter?
-
Tell me Keefe, how does one reconcile the former with the latter?
Just because you aren't into dudes doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want them to be into you.
-
Are you saying that Assata should be pardoned because we all made mistakes in our youth?
Are you intentionally misinterpreting Boxer in the way that makes him sound extreme and insane? Do you seriously think he was referring to the mistakes of Assata? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he was referring to the mistakes of the students who put up the mural.
-
Are you saying that Assata should be pardoned because we all made mistakes in our youth?
Given how sarcastic you've been known to be I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that you're smart enough to know I am not. But on the off chance you are just that dumb let me reiterate that I've already said it was very poor taste of the students to put it up. No big donor is going to stop donating because a group of students wanted to be a bit edgy.
-
This is why I said your earlier post was asinine because you've repeatedly insinuated that she is somehow associated with the entire left. I wonder how you, rocket surgeon, chicos or muwarrior69 would respond if the left posters spent half as much time as you guys do posting insulting claims from the extremists on your end of the political spectrum.
"insulting claims"? please acknowledge. i would like to see what you consider insulting because if they are fact, the insult is inward. plus, this is low hanging fruit. i'll be the first to join the "insults" if i find similar bone-headed decisions/actions made by "extremists on my end of the political spectrum". we do eat our own ya know
-
"insulting claims"? please acknowledge. i would like to see what you consider insulting because if they are fact, the insult is inward. plus, this is low hanging fruit. i'll be the first to join the "insults" if i find similar bone-headed decisions/actions made by "extremists on my end of the political spectrum". we do eat our own ya know
At work for now so don't have the time to go through the multitude of sweeping statements the four of you make. But as I said if we spent half as much time doing that as you guys do. Point is I don't have some fascination with blowing things out of proportion to make sweeping statements based on an extremist part.
-
They don't celebrate a White Male Heterosexual Pride Month either!!!
Corrected. I thought the University celebrated diversity. Guess I was wrong.
-
Corrected. I thought the University celebrated diversity. Guess I was wrong.
Eh, cause we white men have had it pretty rough (yes making assumptions, apologies if I'm wrong).
-
Tell me Keefe, how does one reconcile the former with the latter?
I am not the one living the hypocrisy...I am merely pointing out the inherent tension in a radical feminist lesbian who despises the erotic objectification of women posing in sexually provocative images...
You need to address your question to the actor and not the observer...
-
Again, this is not my perspective or opinion as I feel the same as most of you.
But, there were four MU administration checks and balances that were in play here that let a molehill become a mountain. A club sponsor. The Office of Greek Life. The Provost Office. University Communications. Let alone Facilities. That becomes Lovell's problem as a leader as that is systemic. No different than the failure to follow protocol during the alleged sexual assault fiasco. This is honoring a most wanted criminal. A two second Wiki search would have uncovered this.
As to donors...you think the Zibler Family (as an example) wants their foundation name linked to this? Heck, donors had objections to JUCOs on the basketball team. These are elderly people for the most part who want to affect positive change with their legacies. That said, since I first posted, MU has stepped up the active damage control so well played by MU (and voiced by Chicos here).
Also, there are rather large donors in this thread who are upset...so while I am sure there is hyperbole, I think other people in this thread underestimate some influencial people's sentiment.
-
Given how sarcastic you've been known to be I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that you're smart enough to know I am not. But on the off chance you are just that dumb let me reiterate that I've already said it was very poor taste of the students to put it up. No big donor is going to stop donating because a group of students wanted to be a bit edgy.
I have officially evolved beyond the existential where teal is no longer necessary.
-
Leave it to Keefe to put the priorities back in order.
Shoulda posted some Israeli soldier pics doe, hey?
-
Again, this is not my perspective or opinion as I feel the same as most of you.
But, there were four MU administration checks and balances that were in play here that let a molehill become a mountain. A club sponsor. The Office of Greek Life. The Provost Office. University Communications. Let alone Facilities. That becomes Lovell's problem as a leader as that is systemic. No different than the failure to follow protocol during the alleged sexual assault fiasco. This is honoring a most wanted criminal. A two second Wiki search would have uncovered this.
As to donors...you think the Zibler Family (as an example) wants their foundation name linked to this? Heck, donors had objections to JUCOs on the basketball team. These are elderly people for the most part who want to affect positive change with their legacies. That said, since I first posted, MU has stepped up the active damage control so well played by MU (and voiced by Chicos here).
Also, there are rather large donors in this thread who are upset...so while I am sure there is hyperbole, I think other people in this thread underestimate some influencial people's sentiment.
I believe you meant "Zilber" family. Gee, Thanks. That is going to offend them enough to cut off their support to the school. The ramifications of your failure to proofread your post are going to shake the very foundations of Zibler hall.
-
I have officially evolved beyond the existential where teal is no longer necessary.
What are you? Star Child?
-
Shoulda posted some Israeli soldier pics doe, hey?
6 of one, half dozen of another.
-
What are you? Star Child?
I'd prefer if you called me Mr. Zibler.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/marquette-mural-controversy-cop-killer-assata-shakur-143314875.html
Made Yahoo's top stories.
-
Looking at twitter, there are women out there who seem to know Shakur and what happened. I find it hard to believe that nobody in that goofy gender issues group knew the history of this woman. I hope Lovell comes down as hard on those that did know as he did on McAdams. Channel 4 was on campus yesterday but nobody from MU would go on camera.
Angela @sankofa1974 11h11 hours ago
@SykesCharlie Unless you were there and saw events unfold yourself, feel free to stop slandering Assata Shakur. Thanks.
-
I'd prefer if you called me Mr. Zibler.
Are you deceased too?
-
Looks like the center's director's head just rolled.
-
Looks like the center's director's head just rolled.
Man...about 48 hours. That's pretty amazing.
-
I'd prefer if you called me Mr. Zibler.
Loved your wife, Stacey, as the WWE diva. Any Clooney scoop to share?
-
Looks like the center's director's head just rolled.
Got Lovell'ed, a'ina?
-
Got Lovell'ed, a'ina?
That's just f**kin brilliant.
-
Looks like the center's director's head just rolled.
Have a link or something? How do you know about this?
-
Got Lovell'ed, a'ina?
love/like it! (no pun intended)
-
Loved your wife, Stacey, as the WWE diva. Any Clooney scoop to share?
0 for 2, Blackie. That was Stacy Kiebler.
FTR, I do not know Dr. Blackheart's race, so that was not a racist remark.
-
0 for 2, Blackie. That was Stacy Kiebler.
FTR, I do not know Dr. Blackheart's race, so that was not a racist remark.
Scoop is 100% traditional.
-
From MU-Warrior.blogspot.com...
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015
Tweet From Marquette Center Praised Assata Shakur as “Courageous”
Marquette, in the wake of our publicizing a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center lauding cop killer Assata Shakur, has been in damage control mode, insisting that higher level administrators didn’t know about it.
And that may well be so. But did staffers in the Center, who must have approved the mural know about the woman they were holding up as a sage or role model? Or was it all just a matter of ignorance, with the women of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority wanting to put up a mural of a woman nobody knew anything about? If it was ignorance, the ignorance was stunning.
Of course, the quotes in question came from Shakur’s autobiography. How could anybody read her autobiography and not know about her murder conviction? But maybe somebody simply found the quotes entirely out of context.
However The College Fix has turned up a Tweet, from the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, that clearly implies staffers there did know about the woman whose image they allowed to be painted on their wall.
How in the world could they think she was “courageous?” If they had any information about her at all, they would know that Shakur is a cop killer who is on the FBI’s list of the Ten Most Wanted Terrorists. Who judged her to be “courageous?”
Labels: Assata Shakur, black militant, cop killer, Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, Marquette University, Political Correctness
POSTED BY JOHN MCADAMS AT 4:54 PM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST
BTW, here is the tweet calling her "courageous"...
User Actions
Follow
Marquette GSRC
@MarquetteGSRC
TADA, our mural is finished! In commemoration of the courageous, Assata Shakur. http://fb.me/7cbFADIfL
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite Follow
More
9:54 AM - 24 Mar 2015
-
Have a link or something? How do you know about this?
NM
http://marquettewire.org/2015/05/19/featured/gender-and-sexuality-resource-center-director-gone-after-assata-shakur-mural-removal/
-
0 for 2, Blackie. That was Stacy Kiebler.
FTR, I do not know Dr. Blackheart's race, so that was not a racist remark.
Nor my sense of humor...
-
NM
http://marquettewire.org/2015/05/19/featured/gender-and-sexuality-resource-center-director-gone-after-assata-shakur-mural-removal/
Wow. They couldn't even wait until early Friday evening, aintya?
-
Yawn.
-
fine, if you were just fired from a company for essentially doing the same thing, flipped, how would you look? happy? payback is a beetch-heyna? if it weren't for mcadams shining the light of day on these "do-gooders", that mural would probably still be up. does anyone here believe marquette would have taken it upon themselves to find and remove this mural? ...and the horizontally-challenged lady is not quite ready to sing just yet. we need more john mcadams within the university to provide balance to these far left wing attempts to spread their "crap". this radical group just showed their true colors and was originally formed to appease their beetching about the rescinding of the hiring of one professor o'brien. so they form this group under the guise of sexual diversity, get this money as a pacifier and what do they do with it? push the envelope? the mural has nothing to do with gender blah blah. note the timing-gee, just when it appears to be in vogue to bash or even celebrate cop-abuse? (check jayzee funding the release of baltimore protesters) the groups formation was just a militant foot in the door to proceed with more of their left wing agenda. watch-any criticism on them, and you will see a barrage of accusations- you are anti-this and a denier-that, and fill-in-the-blank-phobic and the ever popular...drum roll please...RACE CARD. hello al sharton; he just obtained a new biness account. they will be like that bad neighbor ya can't get rid of unlike a tenured conservative professor-that was easy. just watch-they may stay under the radar for a while, but just when ya think all's calm-they're baaaaccck. welcome to the university of marquette-berkeley/midwest(UM-B/MW)-this is not our fathers university anymore. gotta go and find me another tax-write-off :-[
You do realize that every time there is an issue involving black or white, you always bring up Al Sharpton?
-
Wow. They couldn't even wait until early Friday evening, aintya?
Why would they wait? This is good news.
-
You do realize that every time there is an issue involving black or white, you always bring up Al Sharpton?
But he's not racist.
-
But he's not racist.
and you call me a troll? way to try to take out your anger/disagreements with my political views. right out of saul's handbook. i am not going to allow either of you to label or stigmatize me to the rest of this board with the incendiary "r" word. that's all you got out of that was al sharpton? dog whistle? trees-forest? you guys are classic. i could sit here and try to defend myself to no avail for you guys-oh, some of my best friends are...i've hired someone from every walk of minority, religion, sexual preference, etc. as a matter of fact, i may be selling a portion of my company/forming a partnership with an associate who happens to be gay. i've had middle easterners, women, african-american women, white guys, brown guys, blah blah blah. i know it's all b.s., but just saying...you guys say/believe what you want, as i've told you many times-i'm a colr-blind character guy. accept it if you will. i don't really give a fluck-i know who i am
-
and you call me a troll? way to try to take out your anger/disagreements with my political views. right out of saul's handbook. i am not going to allow either of you to label or stigmatize me to the rest of this board with the incendiary "r" word. that's all you got out of that was al sharpton? dog whistle? trees-forest? you guys are classic. i could sit here and try to defend myself to no avail for you guys-oh, some of my best friends are...i've hired someone from every walk of minority, religion, sexual preference, etc. as a matter of fact, i may be selling a portion of my company/forming a partnership with an associate who happens to be gay. i've had middle easterners, women, african-american women, white guys, brown guys, blah blah blah. i know it's all b.s., but just saying...you guys say/believe what you want, as i've told you many times-i'm a colr-blind character guy. accept it if you will. i don't really give a fluck-i know who i am
People throw out that "r-word" because it's the best way they know how to stifle a debate
-
A lot of dung slinging going on here, but Marquette handled this ideally. Regardless of whether or not it was a lapse in judgement of a few students, the person that should be responsible is the one charged with oversight of the group (think Houston Rockets). That's what happened here, and I think we can go back to bickering about far less divisive topics. However, I do find it amazing that A.) there is a petition going for her to be re-hired and B.) that this generation thinks that petitions do something.
-
But he's not racist.
Sultan, I don't know, but I would tend to say he isn't. I think it is more that his posts reflect the websites he reads.
-
People throw out that "r-word" because it's the best way they know how to stifle a debate
it's so predictable from a liberal. they are the ones who look at everything thru a prizm. the y see color, religion, sexual orientation first. as i've said, i see character-al sharpton is not a person of good character-he's a L-O-S-E-R, and jayzee just introduced himself to that group by his ACTIONS, not his skin color. get it? content of ones character. it's very apparent to at least a few here, that sunshiner and brandy are saul aulinsky radical liberals. just because the may have offered the class when they were in school doesn't mean you had to drink the kool-ade. saul aulinsky wasn't a very nice guy either-now ya getting the picture?
-
Non racists use terms like coloreds, when referring to African Americans.
-
Sultan, I don't know, but I would tend to say he isn't. I think it is more that his posts reflect the websites he reads.
Fine. Then I would say that he is prejudiced to a certain reaction when it comes to issues involving race.
People throw out that "r-word" because it's the best way they know how to stifle a debate
I'm not attempting to stifle anything. Nice try though.
it's so predictable from a liberal. they are the ones who look at everything thru a prizm. the y see color, religion, sexual orientation first. as i've said, i see character-al sharpton is not a person of good character-he's a L-O-S-E-R, and jayzee just introduced himself to that group by his ACTIONS, not his skin color. get it? content of ones character. it's very apparent to at least a few here, that sunshiner and brandy are saul aulinsky radical liberals. just because the may have offered the class when they were in school doesn't mean you had to drink the kool-ade. saul aulinsky wasn't a very nice guy either-now ya getting the picture?
And *I* am the one that looks at things through a prism? Laughable.
And see, I have never defended this mural. I have never defended those who painted it or authorized it to be put up on the wall. You are the one making all sorts of presumptions about their motives. Calling them "radical"... "militant"... playing the race card. You drone on and on about how you are above labeling and judge people according to their character, yet you seem to imply all sorts of things based on this one incident.
Judge the action. The action was stupid. It was poorly conceived and most certainly not well executed by the students or the staff of the institution. When you start making other assumptions about who they are and their motivations, without knowing them as individuals, I have a problem with that.
-
"Judge the action. The action was stupid. It was poorly conceived and most certainly not well executed by the students or the staff of the institution. When you start making other assumptions about who they are and their motivations, without knowing them as individuals, I have a problem with that. "
Amen, brother. Thank you for succinctly stating how tiresome-ness this extended tirade has become.
-
I see this story scrolling on my Yahoo News bar when I logged into e-mail this morning.
-
"When you start making other assumptions about who they are and their motivations, without knowing them as individuals, I have a problem with that".
hypocrite-a person who pretends to have virtues, morals, religious beliefs or priniciples and whose actions or words belie those assumed beliefs-then there is a picture of you and brandy next to the definition-own it
and then you and brandy have both basically labeled me with the race card? again, face it, when you don't like someones politics, you throw the "r" bomb-grow-up
reinko-the "c" word in reference to african-americans was supposed to be light hearted and should have been in teal and probably not a good decision-my apologies.
-
Charles Sykes @SykesCharlie 12m12 minutes ago
Smoking gun. MU's Susannah Bartlow signed petition to remove Assata Shakur from "Most wanted Terrorist List" https://www.change.org/p/president-barack-obama-remove-assata-shakur-from-the-fbi-s-most-wanted-terrorists-list …
-
If it could be handled quietly, it would have never happened in the first place. This group seems to be so radicalized that I think their intention was to make an outrageous statements with the intent of getting push-back. And if this mural is not addressed, it will be forgotten because their next statement will be even more outrageous. So draw the line now.
Responsibility is an important part of maturing. If you want to make statements like this, then you should be asked to defend them. If this is to much to ask of this group, then the GSRC should be closed.
Just began and ended my reading of this thread on this one. I don't think I can meet Heisenberg halfway to even understand what the hell he is talking about. It seems to contain a lot of Fox News buzzwords like "Radicalize," but as a conservative voter I still have no effing idea what the hell you are talking about.
Truly pissing in the wind.
-
it's so predictable from a liberal.
Totally. This isn't reductive at all. Same can be said about a black, gay or jew, eh?
shut it down
-
Charles Sykes @SykesCharlie 12m12 minutes ago
Smoking gun. MU's Susannah Bartlow signed petition to remove Assata Shakur from "Most wanted Terrorist List" https://www.change.org/p/president-barack-obama-remove-assata-shakur-from-the-fbi-s-most-wanted-terrorists-list …
Yeah I think it is pretty obvious the buck ended with her. That's why she was fired.
Does Charlie realize that?
-
Like I said awhile ago, Marquette being Marquette. Relative to our national relevance and value of the degree, we must have the dumbest bureaucrats in academia. I don't know how that's even debatable.
-
Like I said awhile ago, Marquette being Marquette. Relative to our national relevance and value of the degree, we must have the dumbest bureaucrats in academia. I don't know how that's even debatable.
Yeah, I mean covering up the mural and firing the Center's director in less than 48 hours is really the work of dumb bureaucrats.
-
Like I said awhile ago, Marquette being Marquette. Relative to our national relevance and value of the degree, we must have the dumbest bureaucrats in academia. I don't know how that's even debatable.
Use hyperbole much?
How could this have been handled any better? Do you think that any other institution "relative to our national relevance and value of the degree" has people who read and vet every institution-related social media post, or who walk every room of every building on a daily basis to make sure that nothing offensive is posted?
Marquette just happens to have a professor who is bitter over losing his job for violating University Policy and decided he was going to try to take everyone down with him.
-
We get in the national news for school screw ups every six months. This person is an idiot who should have never been hired in the first place. That's how you prevent stuff like this.
-
So, to recap, a small group of students, with a member of the faculty, commissioned a controversial mural in a rarely seen office in the student union. It went unnoticed for a few weeks. When it was finally brought to the attention of the top levels of administration, the mural was painted over and the faculty member fired.
And some people continue to get their knickers in a twist. To borrow from one of my favorite bands, Great Big Sea, "let it go, let it go, this is smaller than you know. It's no bigger than a pebble lying on a gravel road."
It appears that some of you just aren't happy unless you are faux-raged about something.
-
We get in the national news for school screw ups every six months. This person is an idiot who should have never been hired in the first place. That's how you prevent stuff like this.
Congratulations! I was unaware that you have the ability to only hire employees who never screw up on the job!
Can you see the future? Is there an oracle you seek advice from? Tell us!!! This is what prevents us from being mindless bureaucrats!!!
-
We get in the national news for school screw ups every six months. This person is an idiot who should have never been hired in the first place. That's how you prevent stuff like this.
Says someone who has apparently never hired anyone who wasn't excellent in every aspect. Yes, Marquette is incompetent because not every single one of their thousands of employees measured up.
Or perhaps we should go back into a time machine to the 1970's and hire some other history professor.
-
But seriously, tell me why she shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Here is her LinkedIn profile.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/susannah-bartlow/7/369/9a8
What about her background said that she shouldn't have been hired at Marquette?
-
I'd ask you to reconsider. MU's senior leadership was as appalled as you were. There's no doubt in my mind that this group chooses to push the envelope every chance they get. I also think it's true that McAdams blogged for maximum impact and succeeded. But the characterization that MU somehow celebrates Shakur's viewpoint is inaccurate. Those who are trying to paint this administration as some far left leaning Berkeley-style team couldn't be further from the truth.
I see they fired the head of the Gender and Sexuality Center. My concern is will her replacement be any better as they will likely hire someone with a similar view.
If McAdams is dismissed will they replace him with another person who shares his views?
Just asking.
-
I see they fired the head of the Gender and Sexuality Center. My concern is will her replacement be any better as they will likely hire someone with a similar view.
If McAdams is dismissed will they replace him with another person who shares his views?
Just asking.
I hope so. On both counts. Vive' la difference!
-
If McAdams is dismissed will they replace him with another person who shares his views?
Just asking.
This is an interesting question. If Marquette replaces McAdams with someone who has a clearly conservative-leaning CV, it would certainly take the wind out of McAdams's argument that he was fired for his political views.
-
Congratulations! I was unaware that you have the ability to only hire employees who never screw up on the job!
Can you see the future? Is there an oracle you seek advice from? Tell us!!! This is what prevents us from being mindless bureaucrats!!!
A very basic background search could find if she supported, say, a terrorist on the FBI's most wanted list.
I would start by excluding people who cheer lead for the FBI's most wanted.
-
But seriously, tell me why she shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Here is her LinkedIn profile.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/susannah-bartlow/7/369/9a8
What about her background said that she shouldn't have been hired at Marquette?
Well she can add that she was fired from MU for poor decision making to her linkedIn account. NOT!
-
We get in the national news for school screw ups every six months. This person is an idiot who should have never been hired in the first place. That's how you prevent stuff like this.
For the record, aside from the decision to rescind the offer to to O'Brien (which I recall hearing of once), I don't think I've ever heard of any of these other issues outside Scoop. I'll grant that my news consumption might be less than many others, but I don't think it's entirely atypical. A couple passing mentions by the 24/7 news machine doesn't really have much of an impact, I don't think.
-
A very basic background search could find if she supported, say, a terrorist on the FBI's most wanted list.
I would start by excluding people who cheerlead for the FBI's most wanted.
Really? Sign me up for that. The basic background search I run for my employees only tells me if they have a criminal record or not. I am obviously being shortchanged.
-
How about MU look through their collection of these organizations and get rid of them or merge them. Perhaps save some money to keep tuition in check or better fund actual academic programs.
-
But seriously, tell me why she shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Here is her LinkedIn profile.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/susannah-bartlow/7/369/9a8
What about her background said that she shouldn't have been hired at Marquette?
It took her 8 years to get a PhD in Women's Studies. Hell, Heisenberg could probably get his in under six.
-
So, to recap, a small group of students, with a member of the faculty, commissioned a controversial mural in a rarely seen office in the student union. It went unnoticed for a few weeks. When it was finally brought to the attention of the top levels of administration, the mural was painted over and the faculty member fired.
And some people continue to get their knickers in a twist. To borrow from one of my favorite bands, Great Big Sea, "let it go, let it go, this is smaller than you know. It's no bigger than a pebble lying on a gravel road."
It appears that some of you just aren't happy unless you are faux-raged about something.
Tower we're going to have to talk. The wife and I are fans of Great Big Sea also. We got introduced by now friends from Ontario. (There's a lengthy story behind this.)
I've seen them live a few times including a spirited Canada Day performance in Central Park.
-
I see they fired the head of the Gender and Sexuality Center. My concern is will her replacement be any better as they will likely hire someone with a similar view.
If McAdams is dismissed will they replace him with another person who shares his views?
Just asking.
Let me try to answer that as best as I can. I think it's fair to question the Center which was certainly initially set up in response to the O'Brien misstep where an incomplete vetting into her writings ultimately resulted in Fr. Wild personally nixing her hire. From all I know, that decision was responded to with grace and dignity by Dr. O'Brien. Unfortunately as is often the case, the 'cure' associated with the creation of the Center caused its own ripple effect. While many would see its goals of inclusion and acceptance as laudable and totally in keeping with the broader MU mission, it allowed itself to morph into a hotbed of extreme radical thought under the former director. Clearly in the opinion of all leadership that I know, this most recent episode crossed the line and prompt action was taken. I'd anticipate that the next director would also be a progressive. It's the nature of the field. But let's distinguish such a person from a militant radical. Differing viewpoints benefit us all.
As to the McAdams firing, I'll go back to Marquette's core rational. Instead of dealing with the matter involving the former TA privately through channels, he took to the public to express his viewpoint. And that was deemed a violation of his employment agreement with the university. Funny, when I had John back in the day (multiple times), I thought him to be a Kennedy democrat while I was a Reagan republican. Somehow we put all that aside and learning happened through challenging and enlightening discussion. I hope whoever replaces him can foster that same quest for truth we seem to have lost these days on campus. Wouldn't it be refreshing to actually expand one's mind?
I'll pose one other point. If McAdams was truly a Marquette man, I'd think he would have brought the Center's overstep quietly to Senior Leadership where the same chain of events regarding the mural removal and director termination would have likely occurred behind closed doors and not on Charlie Sykes or Fox & Friends. But no, he had to continue his bombastic pattern on the most sacred weekend of the year detracting from the graduation experience for the Class of 2015 (even our pal Chitown). How many other times in the past has he been reprimanded for this to the point where MU felt the need to begin termination proceedings? Makes him a grade one A-hole in my book.
-
How about MU look through their collection of these organizations and get rid of them or merge them. Perhaps save some money to keep tuition in check or better fund actual academic programs.
While cutting these organizations for cost is another topic, they do need to act on the bold (and hopefully are now). They need to know how their resources are being utilized. Not noticing this for seven weeks because they let a group operate in an obscure location of the AMU is poor oversight.
-
I'll pose one other point. If McAdams was truly a Marquette man, I'd think he would have brought the Center's overstep quietly to Senior Leadership where the same chain of events regarding the mural removal and director termination would have likely occurred behind closed doors and not on Charlie Sykes or Fox & Friends. But no, he had to continue his bombastic pattern on the most sacred weekend of the year detracting from the graduation experience for the Class of 2015 (even our pal Chitown). How many other times in the past has he been reprimanded for this to the point where MU felt the need to begin termination proceedings? Makes him a grade one A-hole in my book.
While, in isolation, I do not share the outrage of others regarding the TA incident, I think I have to invoke the Brady Doctrine here by saying it's more probable than not that McAdams sat on this until graduation weekend, and for that, I agree with the Grade 1 A-hole award.
If McAdams was really concerned with principle, or the reputation of the University for that matter, he should have anonymously leaked this and let Sykes or Fox News run with it. Even in the Yahoo! front page story, the article is tagged with McAdams' name, which is great for his own notoriety, but seems to detract from the message of the incident itself, not to mention, gives his "story" more exposure than it deserves with the general public.
-
While, in isolation, I do not share the outrage of others regarding the TA incident, I think I have to invoke the Brady Doctrine here by saying it's more probable than not that McAdams sat on this until graduation weekend, and for that, I agree with the Grade 1 A-hole award.
If McAdams was really concerned with principle, or the reputation of the University for that matter, he should have anonymously leaked this and let Sykes or Fox News run with it.
Or he could have notified the administration directly, even if it was only to point out to them their alleged hypocrisy. I don't have any reason to believe that Marquette would have handled this matter differently if the story never went beyond campus boundaries, other than they may have taken a little more time to make their decisions.
-
Gotta laugh at those who think McAdams should have gone quietly to the same administration that is trying to fire him and report the mural to save them from this humiliation. With the way MU has harassed him throughout the years, that was never an option.
BTW, McAdams job situation will remain in limbo until the fall when hearings resume. He most certainly has not been officially "fired" yet.
-
Gotta laugh at those who think McAdams should have gone quietly to the same administration that is trying to fire him and report the mural to save them from this humiliation. With the way MU has harassed him throughout the years, that was never an option.
BTW, McAdams job situation will remain in limbo until the fall when hearings resume. He most certainly has not been officially "fired" yet.
Thanks Johnny Mac. ::)
-
I hope whoever replaces him can foster that same quest for truth we seem to have lost these days on campus. Wouldn't it be refreshing to actually expand one's mind.
I agree, diversity of thought and ideas should be the goal of any University. Unfortunately, I don't see it especially for those of us with more traditional views. What is even more troubling to me is that many Departments hire people who think like they do to further their academic agenda. To me that is indoctrination and not education where opposing thought and ideas should be civilly debated. My daughter gave me this book as an early Father Day's gift. Interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silencing-Left-Killing-Speech/dp/1621573702
-
The administration got this right, the mural is gone and the person responsible was fired. Lets all move on.
-
I agree, diversity of thought and ideas should be the goal of any University. Unfortunately, I don't see it especially for those of us with more traditional views. What is even more troubling to me is that many Departments hire people who think like they do to further their academic agenda. To me that is indoctrination and not education where opposing thought and ideas should be civilly debated. My daughter gave me this book as an early Father Day's gift. Interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silencing-Left-Killing-Speech/dp/1621573702
Perfect. I know Powers is someone I disagree with politically. But I enjoy her on TV and sincerely believe I could have an interesting and intelligent discussion with her. I can envision her book as a good read.
-
Gotta laugh at those who think McAdams should have gone quietly to the same administration that is trying to fire him and report the mural to save them from this humiliation. With the way MU has harassed him throughout the years, that was never an option.
BTW, McAdams job situation will remain in limbo until the fall when hearings resume. He most certainly has not been officially "fired" yet.
It's a hell of a trick for McAdams to nail himself to the cross and then be pissed that it was very uncomfortable on said cross
-
I agree, diversity of thought and ideas should be the goal of any University. Unfortunately, I don't see it especially for those of us with more traditional views. What is even more troubling to me is that many Departments hire people who think like they do to further their academic agenda. To me that is indoctrination and not education where opposing thought and ideas should be civilly debated. My daughter gave me this book as an early Father Day's gift. Interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silencing-Left-Killing-Speech/dp/1621573702
While I'm sure that book was written by a completely impartial author who doesn't have an agenda at all, couldn't you make an argument that the opposite is happening at schools like liberty U, WI Lutheran, Wheaton college etc.
-
While cutting these organizations for cost is another topic, they do need to act on the bold (and hopefully are now). They need to know how their resources are being utilized. Not noticing this for seven weeks because they let a group operate in an obscure location of the AMU is poor oversight.
These organizations only exist because of the money sloshing around universities. Focus the budget on the top two missions of Marquette (academics and basketball ;)) and see these antics disappear.
-
Just began and ended my reading of this thread on this one. I don't think I can meet Heisenberg halfway to even understand what the hell he is talking about. It seems to contain a lot of Fox News buzzwords like "Radicalize," but as a conservative voter I still have no effing idea what the hell you are talking about.
Truly pissing in the wind.
So you did not read the post put up 61 seconds before you wrote this. Because it perfectly explained my comment.
-
It's a hell of a trick for McAdams to nail himself to the cross and then be pissed that it was very uncomfortable on said cross
Not bad engineer, not bad.
-
While I'm sure that book was written by a completely impartial author who doesn't have an agenda at all, couldn't you make an argument that the opposite is happening at schools like liberty U, WI Lutheran, Wheaton college etc.
Why don't you read it and get back to us regarding its bias.
-
A very basic background search could find if she supported, say, a terrorist on the FBI's most wanted list.
I would start by excluding people who cheer lead for the FBI's most wanted.
How do you know that?
-
Perfect. I know Powers is someone I disagree with politically. But I enjoy her on TV and sincerely believe I could have an interesting and intelligent discussion with her. I can envision her book as a good read.
yes-looking forward to reading this book and despite my inherent racism i would love to have a root beer with both her and juan williams
-
Let me try to answer that as best as I can. I think it's fair to question the Center which was certainly initially set up in response to the O'Brien misstep where an incomplete vetting into her writings ultimately resulted in Fr. Wild personally nixing her hire.
The offer was rescinded because the local archdiocese got involved.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/93533724.html
O'Brien is a full tenured Professor at another Jesuit university. A school actually named her into a fully endowed professor position. The quality of her research should never have been called into question.
That entire incident should have been much more embarrassing to the institution than this one.
-
While I'm sure that book was written by a completely impartial author who doesn't have an agenda at all, couldn't you make an argument that the opposite is happening at schools like liberty U, WI Lutheran, Wheaton college etc.
Absolutely, but they are few in comparison and you know if you attend one of those schools what kind of "education/indoctrination" your getting. My point is that real discussion on many subjects no longer take place in the classroom, especially if your view runs counter to your professor or TA.
-
Why don't you read it and get back to us regarding its bias.
Ok, read the title then tell me if that in any way mentions the absurdly conservative schools that still teach pray the gay away and shut down any form of self expression. To me the lack of mention of those places would show its bias.
-
Absolutely, but they are few in comparison and you know if you attend one of those schools what kind of "education/indoctrination" your getting. My point is that real discussion on many subjects no longer take place in the classroom, especially if your view runs counter to your professor or TA.
Do you have a basis for this claim?
-
Absolutely, but they are few in comparison and you know if you attend one of those schools what kind of "education/indoctrination" your getting. My point is that real discussion on many subjects no longer take place in the classroom, especially if your view runs counter to your professor or TA.
And I think that you see what you want to. You want to believe that is happening pretty much only on the left stifling the right so you see it everywhere and believe it's true. I can think of at least three classes at Marquette where I felt like my viewpoint wasn't welcome at all and being stifled. But you don't see me writing a book saying how the right is stifling the left's opinions in education.
-
Ok, read the title then tell me if that in any way mentions the absurdly conservative schools that still teach pray the gay away and shut down any form of self expression. To me the lack of mention of those places would show its bias.
Do you even know who Kirsten Powers is?
And of the thousands of colleges and universities in this country, you think the one the Dale Layer coached at plus a handful more are anything more than an anecdote?
But how would you know? You haven't read the book.
-
Do you even know who Kirsten Powers is?
And of the thousands of colleges and universities in this country, you think the one the Dale Layer coached at plus a handful more are anything more than an anecdote?
But how would you know? You haven't read the book.
Nope. I know she's been on fox so I just assume because well... it's fox. Looked her up on wikedia apparently I was wrong about her. Surprised she was on fox.
My point there's plenty of examples of crazy right stifling the left.
Have you read the book? Or are you just pointing out that I haven't read the book? My original post was assuming anything muwarrior69 would post would be a load of far right propaganda. Then I Literally judged a book by its cover. My bad. Happy or you want to continue going back and forth to make this thread longer?
-
Nope. I know she's been on fox so I just assume because well... it's fox. Looked her up on wikedia apparently I was wrong about her. Surprised she was on fox.
My point there's plenty of examples of crazy right stifling the left.
Have you read the book? Or are you just pointing out that I haven't read the book? My original post was assuming anything muwarrior69 would post would be a load of far right propaganda. Then I Literally judged a book by its cover. My bad. Happy or you want to continue going back and forth to make this thread longer?
At what age do adults become so reactionary and convinced that anyone appearing on Fox News has to be some right-wing nut job? I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
-
At what age do adults become so reactionary and convinced that anyone appearing on Fox News has to be some right-wing nut job? I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/kVVKVq4KFqMhy/200.gif)
-
Tower we're going to have to talk. The wife and I are fans of Great Big Sea also. We got introduced by now friends from Ontario. (There's a lengthy story behind this.)
I've seen them live a few times including a spirited Canada Day performance in Central Park.
Count me in the GBS fan club. They are just spectacular live. It was a sad day when Sean left.
-
At what age do adults become so reactionary and convinced that anyone appearing on Fox News has to be some right-wing nut job? I'm just curious so that I can prepare myself.
I fully expect my name in the sources cited section in APA format for this quote
-
Nope. I know she's been on fox so I just assume because well... it's fox. Looked her up on wikedia apparently I was wrong about her. Surprised she was on fox.
My point there's plenty of examples of crazy right stifling the left.
Have you read the book? Or are you just pointing out that I haven't read the book? My original post was assuming anything muwarrior69 would post would be a load of far right propaganda. Then I Literally judged a book by its cover. My bad. Happy or you want to continue going back and forth to make this thread longer?
I am sure there are. They should not stifle discussion, but enlighten.
-
Just because you aren't into dudes doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want them to be into you.
In addition to the glorious "at what age?" play on this thread, how does the above double entendre not get proper recognition? Beautifully done, intentional or not.
On the topic, this thread is people's exhibit 'A' for how we've become a society that is reactionary and polarizing. Let's make a HUGE deal out of every miss step regardless of the situation! Sultan has the most rational perspective on this IMHO. Deep breaths everyone, deep breaths.
-
Scoop is 100% traditional.
4never is an exception, a:ina.
-
From RightWisconsin.com...
By Charlie Sykes
The (Increasingly) Strange World of Marquette University
Published: 5:32 AM May 21, 2015
Who could possibly have seen this coming?
Well, pretty much anyone who had been paying attention to what was happening at the school in the early days of Mike Lovell’s tenure as MU’s first lay president. In fact, one of our lawyer friends rather presciently sent me an email back in early March:
Please take a quick gander at the attached CV. This is the office that is likely spearheading the attack on Prof. McAdams at MU. This doc is online, so I'm not sharing anything privileged.
Can you imagine ponying up $40k/year to a university that would employ this individual?
Attached was the resume of Susannah Bartlow, the director of the Gender and sexuality Resource Center – the inclusion-ocrat who was responsible for the now infamous cop-killer mural. It was a revealing document:
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Racial justice within women’s and gender studies
Anti-oppression education
Twentieth Century American literature
Under "Conferences and Presentations" Bartlow listed:
Co-Presenter. Strategies to Disrupt and Dismantle Racism and White Supremacy. National Women's Studies Association. Oakland, CA. November 11-16, 2012.
Co-Presenter. Cultural Divestment, Community Investment, and Self-Preservation. Activism and the Academy Conference. Barnard Center for Research on Women. New York, NY. September 24-25, 2011.
Collaboration as Play in the Ecofeminist Classroom. Creativity, Play and the Imagination Conference, Teachers' College at Columbia University, New York, NY. May 26-28, 2011.
Co-Facilitator. Anti-Racism/Anti-White Supremacy Workshop. National Women’s Studies Association Conferences, 2010 and 2011.
"Vulnerability As Armor: Womanist Writing on Healing Social Trauma." Not Just Agents of History, But Agents of Futures: New Womanist Scholarship & Art Showcase. National Women’s Studies Association. Atlanta, GA. November 12-15, 2009.
Etc.
She also signed the change.org petition asking President Obama to remove Assata Shaku from the FBI’s "Most Wanted Terrorist List." Having failed at that, she used her position to celebrate the cop-killer fugitive with a mural at Marquette. The mural went up in March, but no one noticed until this weekend. (She was fired Monday.)
Anyone really surprised?
There is plenty of evidence she actually fit in well at Marquette. Under her leadership, Marquette was set to host a Femsex Workshop that would have featured such activities as:
aunt Coloring: Color an anatomical picture from The aunt Coloring Book.
Erotica: Create an anonymous piece of erotica exploring fantasy and desire.
Even though Marquette withdrew its sponsorship of Femsex, Bartlow remained in place, apparently doubling down. While Bartlow flourished, Lovell’s administration earlier this year to fire one of its few conservative professors John McAdams. But that also seems to fit in well with the intellectual climate on campus – or at least in some parts of the campus, reflected in the movement to defend Bartlow in the wake of her firing:
A student government leader who coordinates a Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Committee said Wednesday that students and others within the Milwaukee community were mobilizing to protest the university's "actions against its Gender and Sexuality Resource Center" because they view the actions as "taking a step back on its initiatives surrounding inclusion."
"This center, and its staff, have been responsible and successful in creating a campus environment of inclusivity, respect, and acceptance," said the leader, Joshua-Paul Miles. "I and many others will ensure that the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center continues to create spaces of acceptance and love in the true Jesuit and Catholic mission. These actions do not reflect Marquette's Jesuit and Catholic identity. These are not our values."
At the New Marquette, evidently, the celebration of a woman who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper "execution style" is consistent with having spaces "acceptance and love."
Susannah Bartlow must be proud.
-
Does Sykes still not realize that this chick has been fired? Why is he intent on inflaming a controversy where none really exists...or if it does, it really isn't that big of one? (I know and you know the answer to that question...)
-
To borrow another lyric from another of my favorite bands, Gaelic Storm, "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
-
Do you have a basis for this claim?
I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this. They know they will be shouted down and it's not worth the psychic energy loss. I on the other hand.......
Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?
-
Does Sykes still not realize that this chick has been fired? Why is he intent on inflaming a controversy where none really exists...or if it does, it really isn't that big of one? (I know and you know the answer to that question...)
Or that Bartlow was hired well before Lovell took over!
Look, I generally agree with guys like Charlie on most political issues. I proudly admit to being right of center. But this is just crazy and to paint MU's administration as some leftist group is simply flat out wrong. I can't and won't repeat some of the comments I've heard about the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center but ask all to note Marquette's actions since Sunday. She was literally 'perp walked' within 48 hours of Mike learning about the mural.
WTF Charlie? I'm starting to think he's a Badger sympathizer.
-
I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this. They know they will be shouted down and it's not worth the psychic energy loss. I on the other hand.......
Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?
I would have made the same assertion about liberals.
-
I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this. They know they will be shouted down and it's not worth the psychic energy loss. I on the other hand.......
Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?
Are you saying that nobody wants to put in the effort to back up a claim because they assume nobody will listen/care anyway? If so, I can accept that.
But if you're different, as you imply, I'd love to hear your basis for the original claim (if you support it.)
Finally, I'm not sure a poll of "is it worth the effort to supply sources to back up your assertions on Scoop?" is going to help with anything.
-
Just a thought here....
A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.
B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.
C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.
It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural. The question is why the AKA's? Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo. She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women? The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this. So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur. Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name. Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.
Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history. But again... why the AKAs? Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions. Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?
How is this not racial exploitation? Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?
-
Pretty good stuff Benny. In my conversations over the past couple of days no one has said a cross word about the sorority. So you might be onto something.
-
Just a thought here....
A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.
B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.
C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.
It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural. The question is why the AKA's? Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo. She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women? The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this. So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur. Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name. Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.
Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history. But again... why the AKAs? Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions. Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?
How is this not racial exploitation? Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?
I am not totally convinced that whoever at AKA gave the go-ahead to fund this project didn't know who Assata Shakur was.
I only see three possible scenarios here:
1. AKA knew who Assata Shakur was, and approved it anyway (perhaps they thought Marquette had finally become "enlightened").
2. They didn't know who Assata Shakur was, and didn't ask, because they didn't want to appear that they weren't familiar with a person who was being touted as an African-American hero. In other words, the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
3. They didn't know who Assata Shakur was, and but gave Bartlow the money anyway. This one makes the least amount of sense to me, because why would you fund a mural that honors a person you have never heard of?
-
To borrow another lyric from another of my favorite bands, Gaelic Storm, "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Damn it Tower, I love you so damn much
-
Or that Bartlow was hired well before Lovell took over!
Look, I generally agree with guys like Charlie on most political issues. I proudly admit to being right of center. But this is just crazy and to paint MU's administration as some leftist group is simply flat out wrong. I can't and won't repeat some of the comments I've heard about the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center but ask all to note Marquette's actions since Sunday. She was literally 'perp walked' within 48 hours of Mike learning about the mural.
WTF Charlie? I'm starting to think he's a Badger sympathizer.
Glow, because it's entertainment. Sykes doesn't particularly care what all the facts are. He cherry picks what allows him to present the most palatable porridge for his audience (and ratings). I listen to him too, when Chicago sports radio ceases to hold my interest. Whenever I have "inside" information on one of his topics (for example, when he's discussing an event that my firm is working on) I find that his information is half baked, or lacks context. Keep that in mind if you are tempted to use him as a source.
-
Just a thought here....
A) It's virtually unequivocal that Bartlow was intimately aware of Shakur's background and the controversy surrounding her actions.
B) It is pretty clear to me that she either selected - or at the very least, proposed - Shakur as the subject for the mural on her own.
C) What remains unknown are Bartlow's specific motives for selecting or proposing Shakur.
It can be reasonably surmised that Bartlow "commissioned" the AKA's for the mural. The question is why the AKA's? Bartlow doesn't appear to be a woman of color according to her LinkedIn photo. She's not a member of (or advisor to) AKA as far as I can tell.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that, at best, Bartlow commissioned the AKA's because her mural subject was a black woman, and who better to help with a mural of a black woman than a sorority of black women? The AKA's have gone on record saying that they knew nothing of Shakur's background, and nobody seems to be contesting this. So it is probably fair to say that Bartlow didn't brief the AKA's on Shakur. Even if she didn't commission the Shakur mural as some sort of protest or F-U, she had to know that it was just a matter of time before someone saw the attribution and looked up the name. Either way, she used a group of unsuspecting college students to help her with a mural in a university building of a subject whom she knew was a cop killer.
Sure, you would think that one of the AKA's would have looked up Shakur's history. But again... why the AKAs? Did she see AKA and think to herself... "they're educated black women, so they probably won't have any problem if they find out Shakur's a cop killer," or did she assume the AKA's would be the least likely to ask any questions. Worse yet... did she at all contemplate simply throwing the AKA's under the bus should the s__ ever hit the fan?
How is this not racial exploitation? Is anyone going to argue that she didn't choose the AKA's based on the color of their skin, and potentially put them in harm's way, simply to advance her own cause?
That aside(not dismissing, I agree with you) but how does someone like Bartlow get to the point to be able to do this. Based on all of the information, it seems she intentionally did that and there is no way she thought this would end without controversy. Additionally, to be this radical, people had to have seen similar behavior along her climb of the academic ladder. One doesn't wake up one day and decide to venerate a cop killer and terrorist without some sort of smaller radical statements. I'm all for academic freedom but have we created a system that generates these type of thinkers?
For the record I'd be saying the same thing if there was a professor that got a mural put up to venerate someone who blew up an abortion clinic or something.
Bottom line, is this the type of person we want in a teaching profession, and if not what is the system doing to promote this?
-
Glow, because it's entertainment. Sykes doesn't particularly care what all the facts are. He cherry picks what allows him to present the most palatable porridge for his audience (and ratings). I listen to him too, when Chicago sports radio ceases to hold my interest. Whenever I have "inside" information on one of his topics (for example, when he's discussing an event that my firm is working on) I find that his information is half baked, or lacks context. Keep that in mind if you are tempted to use him as a source.
Agree with this, like any other media or commentary person, Sykes is trying to drive revenue which means listeners/readers. He picks topics in which he can frame an argument that the majority who are not "in the know" will agree with his position and continue to listen.
It's simple math (tin foil hat time), there are far more people in this state that are predisposed to dislike or think the worst of Marquette than support Marquette. This is especially true within the demographic Sykes is looking to pluck (men 18-5). So Sykes will always pick on Marquette and "assume" the worst because it gives him the bigger audience than if he had a nuanced conversation.
-
That aside(not dismissing, I agree with you) but how does someone like Bartlow get to the point to be able to do this. Based on all of the information, it seems she intentionally did that and there is no way she thought this would end without controversy. Additionally, to be this radical, people had to have seen similar behavior along her climb of the academic ladder. One doesn't wake up one day and decide to venerate a cop killer and terrorist without some sort of smaller radical statements. I'm all for academic freedom but have we created a system that generates these type of thinkers?
For the record I'd be saying the same thing if there was a professor that got a mural put up to venerate someone who blew up an abortion clinic or something.
Bottom line, is this the type of person we want in a teaching profession, and if not what is the system doing to promote this?
Just my theory, but I can imagine that she has gotten tons of pushback from various Marquette factions ever since she accepted the position. Think about it: In theory, if you follow all of the Catholic Church's doctrines to the letter, there is no need for a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette. I imagine that she has not particularly enjoyed her job at times. I am sure she is still pissed over the whole FemSex thing.
Gadflies like her enjoy pushing people's buttons. My guess is that when the whole concept of this mural was in its infancy, she thought, "Either I will get away with it, or I will go out in a blaze of glory." My prediction is she will end up at some NFP or think tank where she will be hailed as a brilliant trailblazer.
-
That looks like a standard CV of someone running a gender and sexuality resource center on a college campus. What does publishing her CV show? Anyone who completed a PhD in critical lit, sociology, X studies, is likely going to be a left-wing radical. I mean, it comes with the territory. You will not find a moderate director of a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center on any college campus. I think Sykes is trying to rile people up, which I think is unfortunate.
Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken. Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues). And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses. Sykes seemingly lamenting the fact that a radical ran the Gender Resource Center strikes me as analogous to complaining about an ardent pro-capitalist finance professor running the Applied Investment Management program. I don't mean to say that B-school profs are just as far to the right of the center as GSRC directors are to the left of it. Rather, I'm simply trying to point out that this woman's CV should match your expectations. Otherwise, your expectations need to be revised.
-
That looks like a standard CV of someone running a gender and sexuality resource center on a college campus. What does publishing her CV show? Anyone who completed a PhD in critical lit, sociology, X studies, is likely going to be a left-wing radical. I mean, it comes with the territory. You will not find a moderate director of a Gender and Sexuality Resource Center on any college campus. I think Sykes is trying to rile people up, which I think is unfortunate.
Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken. Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues). And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses. Sykes seemingly lamenting the fact that a radical ran the Gender Resource Center strikes me as analogous to complaining about an ardent pro-capitalist finance professor running the Applied Investment Management program. I don't mean to say that B-school profs are just as far to the right of the center as GSRC directors are to the left of it. Rather, I'm simply trying to point out that this woman's CV should match your expectations. Otherwise, your expectations need to be revised.
You are dead on. I don't expect them to hire someone whose Doctoral Thesis was titled "Praying the Gay Away: Sexuality and Spirituality in a Moral Society".
-
I have a theory that many conservatives on this board don't comment on posts like this. They know they will be shouted down and it's not worth the psychic energy loss. I on the other hand.......
Maybe we should run a poll to validate (or not) my theory?
you hit it for me. some people just want this to go away. so shut up-nothing to see here. on the other hand, some of this discussion can be therapeutic. not in a gloating way at all, but i think many people are a little shocked that marquette has gone this far. how far? well, this far. what is the value of having a gender and whatever club. can't this be lumped into another sociology-based study group or club or resource center? i know, i know, they fired her already. i also realize this is a university and therefore a place for an exchange of ideas, lifestyles...but how far does a jesuit university need to go? i don't know the answer to that, but that is why people are continuing to talk about this. people are just trying to make sense out of this.
-
you hit it for me. some people just want this to go away. so shut up-nothing to see here. on the other hand, some of this discussion can be therapeutic. not in a gloating way at all, but i think many people are a little shocked that marquette has gone this far. how far? well, this far. what is the value of having a gender and whatever club. can't this be lumped into another sociology-based study group or club or resource center? i know, i know, they fired her already. i also realize this is a university and therefore a place for an exchange of ideas, lifestyles...but how far does a jesuit university need to go? i don't know the answer to that, but that is why people are continuing to talk about this. people are just trying to make sense out of this.
You do realize this is already page 11 of this thread ::)
-
Also, McAdams is hardly the lone conservative professor on campus, he is simply the most outspoken. Many of the B-school faculty are unabashedly right of center, at least on fiscal issues (and likely some social issues). And that is pretty much the norm on all college campuses.
My favorite moments in Straz Hall were listening to Steve Lysonski (an unapologetic Pac-NW-bred liberal and professor of marketing) have a political conversation with any of his colleagues. It was typically Lysonski venting about whatever Bush did that week and the other professors egging him on for their own enjoyment. I swear that you could say "Bush is a goddamn idiot" or "Bush is a great president" and get the exact same reaction out of him either way.
-
Pretty sure that no one drove Dr. Christopher Wolfe out of MU and he is quite conservative. Unabashedly. One of my favorite profs at MU. However, my recollection of him is that it would have been out of character for him to publicly go after a TA.
Neither of these recent dismissals had anything to do with the respective professors political views. Both were due entirely to their actions.
-
Damn it Tower, I love you so damn much
I love you, too. Just not in that way.
-
I love you, too. Just not in that way.
Ms. Bartlow on line 1 for you.
-
You do realize this is already page 11 of this thread ::)
umm-yes
as i was saying, some people just want this to go away. so shut up-nothing to see here
-
I love you, too. Just not in that way.
Not in the "you quote music lyrics from a band I really like and you are a reasonable, open minded person with a degree from the same place and are obsessed with Marquette basketball" kind of way??? What way do you love me, cause now I'm scared.
-
Not in the "you quote music lyrics from a band I really like and you are a reasonable, open minded person with a degree from the same place and are obsessed with Marquette basketball" kind of way??? What way do you love me, cause now I'm scared.
OK, EXACTLY in that way. I thought you were getting frisky. ;D
-
OK, EXACTLY in that way. I thought you were getting frisky. ;D
Sounds like we need a Broh Forum, aina?
-
More as this spreads. This linked on Drudge...MU handled it quickly to contain it. McAdams at work.
http://eagnews.org/wi-university-claims-no-knowledge-of-giant-mural-featuring-cop-killer-it-called-courageous/
-
you hit it for me. some people just want this to go away. so shut up-nothing to see here. on the other hand, some of this discussion can be therapeutic. not in a gloating way at all, but i think many people are a little shocked that marquette has gone this far. how far? well, this far. what is the value of having a gender and whatever club. can't this be lumped into another sociology-based study group or club or resource center? i know, i know, they fired her already. i also realize this is a university and therefore a place for an exchange of ideas, lifestyles...but how far does a jesuit university need to go? i don't know the answer to that, but that is why people are continuing to talk about this. people are just trying to make sense out of this.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. You say "Marquette has gone this far." How far has it really gone? Is it just one or two bad actors or is it systematic of something deeper.
Because really have trouble seeing Marquette as some bastion of left-wing radicalism.
-
More as this spreads. This linked on Drudge...MU handled it quickly to contain it. McAdams at work.
http://eagnews.org/wi-university-claims-no-knowledge-of-giant-mural-featuring-cop-killer-it-called-courageous/
Character Revealed on McAdams I guess
-
My take on what happened here:
**Looking at Bartlow's background, I have no doubts she knew exactly who Assata Shakur is and what she was accused of doing. Given that she signed the petition to have her pardoned, that much is obvious.
**While I don't know if she is a woman of color, she clearly has an interest in that subject according to her CV. So I clearly don't think she exploited the AKA sorority. For all I know, they could have a common view regarding Shakur. But the difference here is that Bartlow is a professional while the AKA members are students.
**You don't need any sort of permission to paint a mural on a wall space. At least not a significant one. She may have mentioned it to her boss, but she could have used words like "student lead" or something similar. There is no evidence that anyone above her in the organization chart had any idea what was going on in detail.
**This is very important. Bartlow reported to the Provost. (I think.) Remember that the new Provost hasn't even started yet. She was working for an interim - the Dean of the College of Nursing. Interims don't approach their jobs in the same way as a permanent staff. Simply put, Bartlow likely had a lot more latitude than she would normally have had. Turnover in the President's office didn't help either.
**PR didn't catch this. They should have. Yeah I know that the various offices on campus have dozens of social media accounts. Not an excuse. Simply reviewing what they put out there once a week isn't difficult nor time consuming.
So in the end I have a few observations:
**Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened. Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense.
**Marquette needs to figure out what to do with the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center. This is where I think leadership failed. They established this Center in response to the O'Brien embarrassment. Did it have a mission? What was its role supposed to be? Did the lack of leadership in the Provost or President's office mean that a relatively inexperienced Director could create a kingdom of her own? I'm not necessarily opposed to a Center of that nature on Marquette's campus. But figure how what's its role should be in the context of Marquette University today.
-
My take on what happened here:
**Looking at Bartlow's background, I have no doubts she knew exactly who Assata Shakur is and what she was accused of doing. Given that she signed the petition to have her pardoned, that much is obvious.
**While I don't know if she is a woman of color, she clearly has an interest in that subject according to her CV. So I clearly don't think she exploited the AKA sorority. For all I know, they could have a common view regarding Shakur. But the difference here is that Bartlow is a professional while the AKA members are students.
**You don't need any sort of permission to paint a mural on a wall space. At least not a significant one. She may have mentioned it to her boss, but she could have used words like "student lead" or something similar. There is no evidence that anyone above her in the organization chart had any idea what was going on in detail.
**This is very important. Bartlow reported to the Provost. (I think.) Remember that the new Provost hasn't even started yet. She was working for an interim - the Dean of the College of Nursing. Interims don't approach their jobs in the same way as a permanent staff. Simply put, Bartlow likely had a lot more latitude than she would normally have had. Turnover in the President's office didn't help either.
**PR didn't catch this. They should have. Yeah I know that the various offices on campus have dozens of social media accounts. Not an excuse. Simply reviewing what they put out there once a week isn't difficult nor time consuming.
So in the end I have a few observations:
**Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened. Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense.
**Marquette needs to figure out what to do with the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center. This is where I think leadership failed. They established this Center in response to the O'Brien embarrassment. Did it have a mission? What was its role supposed to be? Did the lack of leadership in the Provost or President's office mean that a relatively inexperienced Director could create a kingdom of her own? I'm not necessarily opposed to a Center of that nature on Marquette's campus. But figure how what's its role should be in the context of Marquette University today.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/mK2CgG2W6wiFG/200.gif)
-
Character Revealed on McAdams I guess
"Character Revealed" on McAdams? He blew the whistle on something that should disgust everyone associated with MU regardless of their politics. How is he the bad guy here? Shooting the messenger because the news makes you uncomfortable? Never a good idea.
-
"Character Revealed" on McAdams? He blew the whistle on something that should disgust everyone associated with MU regardless of their politics. How is he the bad guy here? Shooting the messenger because the news makes you uncomfortable? Never a good idea.
How about because he immediately went to the press instead of simply notifying the appropriate people in administration? I have no doubt that the end result would have been the same. He intentionally wanted to embarrass Marquette.
-
How about because he immediately went to the press instead of simply notifying the appropriate people in administration? I have no doubt that the end result would have been the same. He intentionally wanted to embarrass Marquette.
My guess is that this is evidence that any conversations between the two parties regarding his continued employment at MU isn't going to way he wants.
-
My take on what happened here:
**Looking at Bartlow's background, I have no doubts she knew exactly who Assata Shakur is and what she was accused of doing. Given that she signed the petition to have her pardoned, that much is obvious.
**While I don't know if she is a woman of color, she clearly has an interest in that subject according to her CV. So I clearly don't think she exploited the AKA sorority. For all I know, they could have a common view regarding Shakur. But the difference here is that Bartlow is a professional while the AKA members are students.
**You don't need any sort of permission to paint a mural on a wall space. At least not a significant one. She may have mentioned it to her boss, but she could have used words like "student lead" or something similar. There is no evidence that anyone above her in the organization chart had any idea what was going on in detail.
**This is very important. Bartlow reported to the Provost. (I think.) Remember that the new Provost hasn't even started yet. She was working for an interim - the Dean of the College of Nursing. Interims don't approach their jobs in the same way as a permanent staff. Simply put, Bartlow likely had a lot more latitude than she would normally have had. Turnover in the President's office didn't help either.
**PR didn't catch this. They should have. Yeah I know that the various offices on campus have dozens of social media accounts. Not an excuse. Simply reviewing what they put out there once a week isn't difficult nor time consuming.
So in the end I have a few observations:
**Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened. Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense.
**Marquette needs to figure out what to do with the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center. This is where I think leadership failed. They established this Center in response to the O'Brien embarrassment. Did it have a mission? What was its role supposed to be? Did the lack of leadership in the Provost or President's office mean that a relatively inexperienced Director could create a kingdom of her own? I'm not necessarily opposed to a Center of that nature on Marquette's campus. But figure how what's its role should be in the context of Marquette University today.
Not directly. MU has moved to 'Strong Provost' model. Numerous departments not previously associated with academics directly now report into that office mostly reporting to a series of deputies, in this case likely Associate Provost Dr. Bill Welburn. It should be noted that beyond the Deans, the Provost has approximately 5-8 direct reports, all at the Vice Provost or Associate Provost level. And to suggest that Dr. Callahan has approached the job with anything less than 100% dedication for the two years she has served since Fr. Pilarz asked her to replace Dr. Pauly is flat out wrong Sultan.
I will agree that further strategic changes/reevaluations have purposefully been deferred (especially in the past 6 months) to give incoming Provost Dr. Dan Myers a chance to make his mark.
-
Who said that she wasn't "100% dedicated" to her position?
I said that "interims don't approach their job the same way as permanent staff." That is a general statement based on working in higher education for 25 years with various interim deans, provosts and presidents. And I said it is "likely" she had more latitude.
I am sure that Dr. Callahan worked very hard to do a good job. That being said, I have no idea how she approached her job or how good she was at it. Frankly I have no evidence either way.
-
Who said that she wasn't "100% dedicated" to her position?
I said that "interims don't approach their job the same way as permanent staff." That is a general statement based on working in higher education for 25 years with various interim deans, provosts and presidents. And I said it is "likely" she had more latitude.
I am sure that Dr. Callahan worked very hard to do a good job. That being said, I have no idea how she approached her job or how good she was at it. Frankly I have no evidence either way.
I do. Take that for what it's worth.
-
My take on what happened here:
**Looking at Bartlow's background, I have no doubts she knew exactly who Assata Shakur is and what she was accused of doing. Given that she signed the petition to have her pardoned, that much is obvious.
**While I don't know if she is a woman of color, she clearly has an interest in that subject according to her CV. So I clearly don't think she exploited the AKA sorority. For all I know, they could have a common view regarding Shakur. But the difference here is that Bartlow is a professional while the AKA members are students.
**You don't need any sort of permission to paint a mural on a wall space. At least not a significant one. She may have mentioned it to her boss, but she could have used words like "student lead" or something similar. There is no evidence that anyone above her in the organization chart had any idea what was going on in detail.
**This is very important. Bartlow reported to the Provost. (I think.) Remember that the new Provost hasn't even started yet. She was working for an interim - the Dean of the College of Nursing. Interims don't approach their jobs in the same way as a permanent staff. Simply put, Bartlow likely had a lot more latitude than she would normally have had. Turnover in the President's office didn't help either.
**PR didn't catch this. They should have. Yeah I know that the various offices on campus have dozens of social media accounts. Not an excuse. Simply reviewing what they put out there once a week isn't difficult nor time consuming.
So in the end I have a few observations:
**Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened. Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense.
**Marquette needs to figure out what to do with the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center. This is where I think leadership failed. They established this Center in response to the O'Brien embarrassment. Did it have a mission? What was its role supposed to be? Did the lack of leadership in the Provost or President's office mean that a relatively inexperienced Director could create a kingdom of her own? I'm not necessarily opposed to a Center of that nature on Marquette's campus. But figure how what's its role should be in the context of Marquette University today.
Good synopsis Sultan. Here is my issue. Jodi O'Brien gets dumped on by Marquette. While I agree that this was not a huge PR disaster, it was not in keeping with Jesuit standards. Then, in some sort of presumed settlement with Dr. O'Brien (what exactly we do not know)Marquette sets up this waste of tuition Resource Center, causing more PR issues. Does anyone think that a tribute to a cop killer is in keeping with Jesuit morality?
-
How about because he immediately went to the press instead of simply notifying the appropriate people in administration? I have no doubt that the end result would have been the same. He intentionally wanted to embarrass Marquette.
I think his point was Marquette should be embarrassed over this. McAdams is a Spaniard in the works, a fly in the ointment, a burr in the saddle and has been one for decades. He thinks MU has fallen off the rails and given in to political correctness to stymie conservatives while being tolerant of the far left. This was exhibit A. Why help the administration that's trying to fire you cover up the evidence?
-
Good synopsis Sultan. Here is my issue. Jodi O'Brien gets dumped on by Marquette. While I agree that this was not a huge PR disaster, it was not in keeping with Jesuit standards. Then, in some sort of presumed settlement with Dr. O'Brien (what exactly we do not know)Marquette sets up this waste of tuition Resource Center, causing more PR issues. Does anyone think that a tribute to a cop killer is in keeping with Jesuit morality?
Of course not. But apparently MU had a director who thought that she was falsely accused.
One question I have about this Center. Was it brand new in that it used new resources to staff and fund? Or was it something that they consolidated from other positions and funding? A combination?
-
How about because he immediately went to the press instead of simply notifying the appropriate people in administration? I have no doubt that the end result would have been the same. He intentionally wanted to embarrass Marquette.
How do you know that he would have been heard? That relationship is so fractured that I doubt anyone would listen.
-
I think his point was Marquette should be embarrassed over this. McAdams is a Spaniard in the works, a fly in the ointment, a burr in the saddle and has been one for decades. He thinks MU has fallen off the rails and given in to political correctness to stymie conservatives while being tolerant of the far left. This was exhibit A. Why help the administration that's trying to fire you cover up the evidence?
Why would you assume they want to cover it up? McAdams made the whole thing look a lot more sinister than it actually was, that is his "sin" as I see it. I get that we shouldn't expect him to support an employer who is trying to fire him, but it seems to me he went out of his way to be vindictive and given his past history of flame throwing; it's revealing to me.
He may have started as wanting to make equal speech a thing on campus, but I think he lost the altruism of his position long ago and it became more about him being a firebrand and spotlight seeking.
My opinion, not saying I'm right, but that's the conclusion I draw with what I know.
-
How do you know that he would have been heard? That relationship is so fractured that I doubt anyone would listen.
Because there is no one else he can talk to on campus that he's friendly with that has a decent rapore with the administration that could have alerted them to it?
This is the problem with screaming oppression and hate speech at everything....when it actually exists its hard to get someone to take you at face value.
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_limwgun8Vv1qcna8co1_500.gif)
-
McAdams is a Spaniard in the works, a fly in the ointment
But is he Spanish Fly?
-
Does anyone think that a tribute to a cop killer is in keeping with Jesuit morality?
No, but students sketching their aunt's vagina in Crayola 64 colored splendor evidently was...
-
I think his point was Marquette should be embarrassed over this. McAdams is a Spaniard in the works,
Spanish O'Donnells?
-
Why would you assume they want to cover it up? McAdams made the whole thing look a lot more sinister than it actually was, that is his "sin" as I see it. I get that we shouldn't expect him to support an employer who is trying to fire him, but it seems to me he went out of his way to be vindictive and given his past history of flame throwing; it's revealing to me.
He may have started as wanting to make equal speech a thing on campus, but I think he lost the altruism of his position long ago and it became more about him being a firebrand and spotlight seeking.
My opinion, not saying I'm right, but that's the conclusion I draw with what I know.
Yep.
-
He may have started as wanting to make equal speech a thing on campus, but I think he lost the altruism of his position long ago and it became more about him being a firebrand and spotlight seeking.
You know, if it weren't for firebrands like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry we would all be speaking English today!!
-
No, but students sketching their aunt's vagina in Crayola 64 colored splendor evidently was...
Keefe, did this really happen or am I missing the teal?
-
How about because he immediately went to the press instead of simply notifying the appropriate people in administration? I have no doubt that the end result would have been the same. He intentionally wanted to embarrass Marquette.
It definitely is McAdams' fault. As a Marquette employee... oh wait...
-
Keefe, did this really happen or am I missing the teal?
Source, hey?
-
Keefe, did this really happen or am I missing the teal?
Google "c*nt coloring book Marquette" and you'll find the answer.
-
Keefe, did this really happen or am I missing the teal?
I would think a man sporting your name, 69, would be well versed in the Sexuality curriculum now offered by our beloved alma mater.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-ed-marquette-universitys-femsex-workshop-features-ct-coloring-book-and-other-tools-studying
The real question I am now asking myself is why, as a red-blooded American 18 year old male, was I using this text book...
(http://images.cengagebrain.com/images/1580037545207870859514920898001612191636.jpg)
when others at Marquette were using this one...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71SCXI-MHWL.jpg)
THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT BOOK USED AT MARQUETTE
-
a c*nt colring book ?-(my God, her parents must be so proud. oh, your daughter corrine-and what does she do? oh-she has developed and markets her own line of c*nt colring books...[/color]that should have been added to a scene in meet the fockers
-
a c*nt colring book ?-(my God, her parents must be so proud. oh, your daughter corrine-and what does she do? oh-she has developed and markets her own line of c*nt colring books...[/color]that should have been added to a scene in meet the fockers
You could actually argue that the "author" did it as a weird mind f#ck gag.
But the fact that Marquette University had this as a text book for matriculating course work is incomprehensible. Who in the hell had oversight over this madness?
Coloring comic book renderings of female genitalia?
Writing a paper on how you frigged yourself to orgasm?
Sharing personal perspectives on menstruation?
Asking your parents to share that magical, mystical moment of how they made you?
There is no redeeming value in any of this rubbish.
-
You could actually argue that the "author" did it as a weird mind f#ck gag.
But the fact that Marquette University had this as a text book for matriculating course work is incomprehensible. Who in the hell had oversight over this madness?
Coloring comic book renderings of female genitalia?
Writing a paper on how you frigged yourself to orgasm?
Sharing personal perspectives on menstruation?
Asking your parents to share that magical, mystical moment of how they made you?
There is no redeeming value in any of this rubbish.
Well it sure isn't physics.
-
You could actually argue that the "author" did it as a weird mind f#ck gag.
But the fact that Marquette University had this as a text book for matriculating course work is incomprehensible. Who in the hell had oversight over this madness?
Coloring comic book renderings of female genitalia?
Writing a paper on how you frigged yourself to orgasm?
Sharing personal perspectives on menstruation?
Asking your parents to share that magical, mystical moment of how they made you?
There is no redeeming value in any of this rubbish.
Hope McAdams doesn't find out about "coloring c*nts for credits" at MU. He might use it to embarrass Marquette - those of us who aren't already embarrassed, that is.
-
Hope McAdams doesn't find out about "coloring c*nts for credits" at MU. He might use it to embarrass Marquette - those of us who aren't already embarrassed, that is.
My favorite, Lenny, is that one assignment was actually having the students masturbate then write a paper on the experience...
"Hey Crash! We're headed to the 'Lanche. You in?"
"No, man. Wish I could but I have a friggin' homework assignment. It is really hard..."
-
My favorite, Lenny, is that one assignment was actually having the students masturbate then write a paper on the experience...
"Hey Crash! We're headed to the 'Lanche. You in?"
"No, man. Wish I could but I have a friggin' homework assignment. It is really hard..."
I wonder what the TA would do if you came to her for help
-
OK, I'm totally of the same opinion that the coloring book is way out of bounds for a private Catholic university.
But I'll play devil's advocate for a moment.....Since I'm a white, heterosexual, male I can have an opinion but I don't get a vote, and I certainly can't get appalled, with anything regarding gender equality/LGBT/minority issues. I simply don't have the necessary life experiences and perspectives to have a fully informed opinion. And I'm guessing that's true of the VAST majority of Scoopers.
So, disagree. But save the moral indignation for those whom it actually means something personal.
Again - devil's advocate for perspective
-
I would think a man sporting your name, 69, would be well versed in the Sexuality curriculum now offered by our beloved alma mater.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-ed-marquette-universitys-femsex-workshop-features-ct-coloring-book-and-other-tools-studying
The real question I am now asking myself is why, as a red-blooded American 18 year old male, was I using this text book...
(http://images.cengagebrain.com/images/1580037545207870859514920898001612191636.jpg)
when others at Marquette were using this one...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71SCXI-MHWL.jpg)
THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT BOOK USED AT MARQUETTE
OMG! Father McEvoy must be turning in his grave! I had him for Christian Marriage.
http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/recent.php?subaction=showfull&id=1246028572
-
OK, I'm totally of the same opinion that the coloring book is way out of bounds for a private Catholic university.
But I'll play devil's advocate for a moment.....Since I'm a white, heterosexual, male I can have an opinion but I don't get a vote, and I certainly can't get appalled, with anything regarding gender equality/LGBT/minority issues. I simply don't have the necessary life experiences and perspectives to have a fully informed opinion. And I'm guessing that's true of the VAST majority of Scoopers.
So, disagree. But save the moral indignation for those whom it actually means something personal.
Again - devil's advocate for perspective
It was for a voluntary workshop. Not a class for credit.
-
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/aunt-coloring-book-tee-corinne/1101109064?ean=9780867193718
Item is in Acceptable condition: Item shows moderate signs of wear, but is complete and functions as intended. Signs of wear may include scratches, marks, dents, worn cover
-
I would think a man sporting your name, 69, would be well versed in the Sexuality curriculum now offered by our beloved alma mater.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-ed-marquette-universitys-femsex-workshop-features-ct-coloring-book-and-other-tools-studying
The real question I am now asking myself is why, as a red-blooded American 18 year old male, was I using this text book...
(http://images.cengagebrain.com/images/1580037545207870859514920898001612191636.jpg)
when others at Marquette were using this one...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71SCXI-MHWL.jpg)
THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT BOOK USED AT MARQUETTE
Any y'all need special help sessions with this?
-
Below is a letter written to the administration by Heather Hathaway, Associate Professor of English, on behalf of faculty upset with the handling of the dismissal of Susannah Bartlow and the removal of the mural.
Dear President Lovell and Interim Provost Callahan and Members of the Board of Trustees Cc: Incoming Provost Myers
We write to express our alarm about the decision-making process surrounding the removal of the mural in the GSRC and the termination of Director Susannah Bartlow. Though our opinions on the content and placement of the mural itself vary, we are undivided about how the administration’s exclusionary and non-transparent decision-making process compromises our ability to support the administration with regard to issues surrounding race, gender and sexuality. This most recent incident is another in a pattern (see the firing of Jodi O’Brien and the FemSex controversy) of non-consultative decision-making that has caused the university public notoriety and significantly deteriorated both student and faculty morale. As we stand at yet another critical juncture in the University’s leadership, we implore you to break this damaging cycle by living up to University’s stated mission and guiding values of “search[ing] for truth...[by] discover[ing] and sharing... knowledge” and “embrac[ing] new and collaborative methods of teaching, learning, research and service in an inclusive environment that supports all of our members in reaching their fullest potential.”
We do not believe these ideals were upheld in the decision to remove the mural without seeking input from the students involved or from faculty with expertise in the area. First and foremost, the decision not to engage the leadership and members of the sponsoring sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, sends the very clear message to students that their opinions and concerns are irrelevant to the administration. Such disregard would be appalling in any circumstance, but given that the students involved are African American women—that is to say, members of the Marquette community who are already marginalized by race and gender—this oversight (at best) or blatant incivility (at worst) directly contradicts the University’s stated guiding value of “nurtur[ing] an inclusive, diverse community that fosters new opportunities, partnerships, collaboration and vigorous yet respectful debate.” Though we do not presume to speak for the students themselves, as faculty and staff “whose commitment to students is fundamental to [our] intellectual and professional lives,” we find the lack of dialogue with students to be egregiously disrespectful and profoundly disturbing.
Second, we find it deeply troubling that in a university—a societal institution explicitly designated to exchanging ideas and advancing knowledge—no efforts were made to consult faculty or staff with expertise in the area in order to understand the context and content of the mural itself from intellectual, cultural and historical perspectives. Instead, the reactionary rhetoric of a single faculty member who is currently suspended by the University took precedence over the knowledge of faculty in Africana Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, History, Sociology, Criminology and Psychology, to cite only a few relevant academic disciplines, who possess years of training and valuable insights into the complexities surrounding race and gender studies generally, and the case of Assata Shakur specifically. Moreover, no efforts were made to consult any of the standing committees of faculty, staff, and students whose purpose is to advise on matters related to the issues at hand. The Advisory Board of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center certainly deserved consultation given their very charge to guide the Center. The Diversity Advisory Committee, which has been working for the past two years to fulfill a charge given to it by Interim Provost Callahan to create a Strategic Theme on Equity and Inclusion for the University, would have been another logical and helpful resource. So, too,
would have been the Committee on Diversity and Equity, a division of the Academic Senate. If the collective good judgment of these “governing” bodies of the institution is not consulted in moments of crisis, it is difficult to imagine what their function might be.
The objections we raise here are merely those pertaining to the autocratic nature of the decision to remove the student-initiated and funded mural and to fire the director of its sponsoring unit, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. We have not even touched upon the wide array of related concerns such as the University’s commitment to the recruitment and retention of racialized students, faculty, and staff; its commitment toward gender equity at all levels; the funding of programs such as the majors in Africana and Women’s and Gender Studies which are designed to educate the Marquette community about these very issues; academic freedom; or the cold climate surrounding race, gender and sexuality in which we must work and live at Marquette. All of these are of grave concern and require attention and action by the new leadership of President Lovell and Provost Myers. We expect to contribute our expertise in this process and challenge you to invite that of Marquette’s most important constituency, the students themselves, as you chart a new, inclusive and collaborative path for the University. Let these most recent failures in leadership come to an end and mark the beginning of a Marquette that is authentically and actually about our guiding values of “collaboration,” “inclusion” and “respectful debate.”
-
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.
The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite. As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost. Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?
Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?
There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.
Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?
Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work? Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations.
Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology
-
Gotta love A&S faculty.
(I am an A&S alum.)
-
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.
The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite. As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost. Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?
Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?
There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.
Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?
Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work? Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations.
Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology
No one can bring back or replace Werner Foerster, he is dead! As long as there is faculty at MU trying to justify his murder my dollars are going elsewhere.
-
Below is a letter written to the administration by Heather Hathaway, Associate Professor of English, on behalf of faculty upset with the handling of the dismissal of Susannah Bartlow and the removal of the mural.
Dear President Lovell and Interim Provost Callahan and Members of the Board of Trustees Cc: Incoming Provost Myers
We write to express our alarm about the decision-making process surrounding the removal of the mural in the GSRC and the termination of Director Susannah Bartlow. Though our opinions on the content and placement of the mural itself vary, we are undivided about how the administration’s exclusionary and non-transparent decision-making process compromises our ability to support the administration with regard to issues surrounding race, gender and sexuality. This most recent incident is another in a pattern (see the firing of Jodi O’Brien and the FemSex controversy) of non-consultative decision-making that has caused the university public notoriety and significantly deteriorated both student and faculty morale. As we stand at yet another critical juncture in the University’s leadership, we implore you to break this damaging cycle by living up to University’s stated mission and guiding values of “search[ing] for truth...[by] discover[ing] and sharing... knowledge” and “embrac[ing] new and collaborative methods of teaching, learning, research and service in an inclusive environment that supports all of our members in reaching their fullest potential.”
We do not believe these ideals were upheld in the decision to remove the mural without seeking input from the students involved or from faculty with expertise in the area. First and foremost, the decision not to engage the leadership and members of the sponsoring sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, sends the very clear message to students that their opinions and concerns are irrelevant to the administration. Such disregard would be appalling in any circumstance, but given that the students involved are African American women—that is to say, members of the Marquette community who are already marginalized by race and gender—this oversight (at best) or blatant incivility (at worst) directly contradicts the University’s stated guiding value of “nurtur[ing] an inclusive, diverse community that fosters new opportunities, partnerships, collaboration and vigorous yet respectful debate.” Though we do not presume to speak for the students themselves, as faculty and staff “whose commitment to students is fundamental to [our] intellectual and professional lives,” we find the lack of dialogue with students to be egregiously disrespectful and profoundly disturbing.
Second, we find it deeply troubling that in a university—a societal institution explicitly designated to exchanging ideas and advancing knowledge—no efforts were made to consult faculty or staff with expertise in the area in order to understand the context and content of the mural itself from intellectual, cultural and historical perspectives. Instead, the reactionary rhetoric of a single faculty member who is currently suspended by the University took precedence over the knowledge of faculty in Africana Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, History, Sociology, Criminology and Psychology, to cite only a few relevant academic disciplines, who possess years of training and valuable insights into the complexities surrounding race and gender studies generally, and the case of Assata Shakur specifically. Moreover, no efforts were made to consult any of the standing committees of faculty, staff, and students whose purpose is to advise on matters related to the issues at hand. The Advisory Board of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center certainly deserved consultation given their very charge to guide the Center. The Diversity Advisory Committee, which has been working for the past two years to fulfill a charge given to it by Interim Provost Callahan to create a Strategic Theme on Equity and Inclusion for the University, would have been another logical and helpful resource. So, too,
would have been the Committee on Diversity and Equity, a division of the Academic Senate. If the collective good judgment of these “governing” bodies of the institution is not consulted in moments of crisis, it is difficult to imagine what their function might be.
The objections we raise here are merely those pertaining to the autocratic nature of the decision to remove the student-initiated and funded mural and to fire the director of its sponsoring unit, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. We have not even touched upon the wide array of related concerns such as the University’s commitment to the recruitment and retention of racialized students, faculty, and staff; its commitment toward gender equity at all levels; the funding of programs such as the majors in Africana and Women’s and Gender Studies which are designed to educate the Marquette community about these very issues; academic freedom; or the cold climate surrounding race, gender and sexuality in which we must work and live at Marquette. All of these are of grave concern and require attention and action by the new leadership of President Lovell and Provost Myers. We expect to contribute our expertise in this process and challenge you to invite that of Marquette’s most important constituency, the students themselves, as you chart a new, inclusive and collaborative path for the University. Let these most recent failures in leadership come to an end and mark the beginning of a Marquette that is authentically and actually about our guiding values of “collaboration,” “inclusion” and “respectful debate.”
The usual suspects. At the risk of implying guilt by association, a friendly reminder that the incoming provost is a sociologist. With that in mind, another reason why I am glad that this mural was spotted and removed sooner rather than later.
I guess this is the start of the blowback storm. Stand strong, Lovell!!
-
No one can bring back or replace Werner Foerster, he is dead! As long as there is faculty at MU trying to justify his murder my dollars are going elsewhere.
Nobody is "justifying his murder." Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
-
The usual suspects. At the risk of implying guilt by association, a friendly reminder that the incoming provost is a sociologist. With that in mind, another reason why I am glad that this mural was spotted and removed sooner rather than later.
I guess this is the start of the blowback storm. Stand strong, Lovell!!
He'll take the heat from the faculty because it is easier to weather than the heat he would take from elsewhere.
-
And what about all those students who were honing their masturbation skills as part of the FEMSEX practicum? No doubt they are worked into a lather about this! We need to lend them a hand and probe this very deeply and thoroughly.
Finally, we need to know who fingered Susannah Bartlow. Something is definitely fishy in all this.
-
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.
The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite. As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost. Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?
Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?
There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.
Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?
Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work? Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations.
Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology
So honoring Thomas Jefferson is just as bad -or worse- than honoring Assata Shakur?
LOL Academics.
-
He'll take the heat from the faculty because it is easier to weather than the heat he would take from elsewhere.
Before the fact this is most certainly true. The difficulty, though, is sticking to the plan when actually facing the heat. Actual heat is much hotter than would-be heat from elsewhere.
-
Below is another letter written by Stephen L. Franzoi, professor in Psychology, regarding displeasure with the handling of the mural issue. It was sent to Marquette faculty and some staff asking if anyone wanted to sign their name to it before it was sent to the administration.
The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite. As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.
First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost. Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university?
Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?
There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history.
Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?
Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process?
Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work? Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?
Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations.
Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology
This is truly awful stuff...Stephen L. Franzoi either lost a bet and was forced to write this or he is a genuine idiot.
-
Fire them all!!!!!!!!!
-
And what about all those students who were honing their masturbation skills as part of the FEMSEX practicum? No doubt they are worked into a lather about this! We need to lend them a hand and probe this very deeply and thoroughly.
Finally, we need to know who fingered Susannah Bartlow. Something is definitely fishy in all this.
Yeah but, some of these students are masturbatin' at only a 3rd grade level, hey?
-
Yeah but, some of these students are masterbatin' at only a 3rd grade level, hey?
You know, if McAdams hadn't fingered Bartlow and brought this whole issue to a climax the level of masturbation proficiency among Marquette coeds could have reached a fevered pitch.
-
It was for a voluntary workshop. Not a class for credit.
It was pointed out to me that I was too tired and cranky to see the subtle jocularity in another exchange tonight (guilty as charged). are you saying that the case here, or are you saying the post is even more on point.
*Looong week and not at my best on seeing subtleties*
-
Nobody is "justifying his murder." Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.
-
Before the fact this is most certainly true. The difficulty, though, is sticking to the plan when actually facing the heat. Actual heat is much hotter than would-be heat from elsewhere.
I'd hardly classify a couple of unpersuasive letters from no-name A&S faculty lefties as "heat."
-
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.
Again, you are reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't see a single passage you quoted as "justifying his murder."
I am seeing both saying that there should have been a more intellectual discussion about who she was and if the mural should have been taken down in the first place. While I sympathize with their point in general, in this case it is just too "out there."
That's the role that faculty play. They don't have to deal with the external issues that the University is facing, so they can say this stuff with little consequence to them.
-
I will admit that I didn't read the entire 14 page thread on this, but a few initial posts caught my attention and I wanted to comment on them.
First, let me also be clear that I though this was a bad idea to have painted on a wall, because of sensitivities, but we would be right in revisiting Assata as a person. There is a different side to the story than the wikipedia article.
It is well known that Assata was a target of secret surveillance programs by J. Edgar Hoover and that he was specifically targeting black organizations. She was falsely accused of crimes 6 times with manufactured data to try and get her in jail.
It was those that led her to flee police. The shootout is heavily contested. All forensic evidence say she never held nor shot a gun at the scene of the shootout. The FBI forensic evidence indicated that she had her hands up and was surrendering when she was shot twice, with the second shot being into her back.
The officer who told the story of her starting the gunfight has admitted to making the entire story up.
Prior to her court case she spent 4-years in jail awaiting trial. 2-years of it in solitary for no actual reason. After trying to acquire evidence against her and not being able to show that she even held a gun at the shootout, they went to trial by handpicking a jury composed of close friends and family members of the deceased state trooper.
She was convicted. If this side of the story is correct then she should be more celebrated as an individual. Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure. The lack of evidence and the rigged jury though are a matter of public record.
-
That's the role that faculty play. They don't have to deal with the external issues that the University is facing, so they can say this stuff with little consequence to them.
Interesting you say that with so much confidence, given the administration's position on free speech.
-
Interesting you say that with so much confidence, given the administration's position on free speech.
I don't know what you mean by that.
EDIT: Oh McAdams? McAdams wasn't a free speech issue. Never was.
-
I don't know what you mean by that.
EDIT: Oh McAdams? McAdams wasn't a free speech issue. Never was.
You're right, just a professor fired for what he wrote. Just saying that if I were a professor is have serious concerns about serving about serving as a check on the administration by speaking out.
-
You're right, just a professor fired for what he wrote. Just saying that if I were a professor is have serious concerns about serving about serving as a check on the administration by speaking out.
He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to. Keep pretending that didn't happen.
Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs. Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.
So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.
-
I'd hardly classify a couple of unpersuasive letters from no-name A&S faculty lefties as "heat."
These people have a 20-year old unquenchable desire to see themselves as Bobby Kennedy reincarnate. I wouldn't underestimate their perseverance.
-
These people have a 20-year old unquenchable desire to see themselves as Bobby Kennedy reincarnate. I wouldn't underestimate their perseverance.
But they have no power. Lovell can get the new Provost to run interference, and as long as he keeps raising money, the basketball team wins, and enrollment is up, no one is going to care.
-
He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to. Keep pretending that didn't happen.
Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs. Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.
So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.
Oh, I get it. You can say whatever you like as long as you don't do it in a way that the administration disagrees with: seems like a bright line rule.
-
Oh, I get it. You can say whatever you like as long as you don't do it in a way that the administration disagrees with: seems like a bright line rule.
No, you can say what you want as long as you don't call out students in your blog after being warned not to - and after McAdams admitted he was wrong. Pretty simple.
I mean, do you think the administration likes the letters these faculty are sending around? I doubt it. Will the authors be fired? Not a chance.
You can continue to see this as a left/right issue, but you would be wrong. If you can't see the substantive differences between the two instances, I have no idea what to say.
-
I will admit that I didn't read the entire 14 page thread on this, but a few initial posts caught my attention and I wanted to comment on them.
First, let me also be clear that I though this was a bad idea to have painted on a wall, because of sensitivities, but we would be right in revisiting Assata as a person. There is a different side to the story than the wikipedia article.
It is well known that Assata was a target of secret surveillance programs by J. Edgar Hoover and that he was specifically targeting black organizations. She was falsely accused of crimes 6 times with manufactured data to try and get her in jail.
It was those that led her to flee police. The shootout is heavily contested. All forensic evidence say she never held nor shot a gun at the scene of the shootout. The FBI forensic evidence indicated that she had her hands up and was surrendering when she was shot twice, with the second shot being into her back.
The officer who told the story of her starting the gunfight has admitted to making the entire story up.
Prior to her court case she spent 4-years in jail awaiting trial. 2-years of it in solitary for no actual reason. After trying to acquire evidence against her and not being able to show that she even held a gun at the shootout, they went to trial by handpicking a jury composed of close friends and family members of the deceased state trooper.
She was convicted. If this side of the story is correct then she should be more celebrated as an individual. Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure. The lack of evidence and the rigged jury though are a matter of public record.
Is the FBI aware of all of this? Because they added her to the most wanted list in 2013.
-
No, you can say what you want as long as you don't call out students in your blog after being warned not to - and after McAdams admitted he was wrong. Pretty simple.
I mean, do you think the administration likes the letters these faculty are sending around? I doubt it. Will the authors be fired? Not a chance.
You can continue to see this as a left/right issue, but you would be wrong. If you can't see the substantive differences between the two instances, I have no idea what to say.
I see this as a free speech issue. McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either. The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides. Now the campus's liberals shouldn't be surprised by the university's actions here. When the university's rule of decision is the court of public opinion, the results can be disheartening.
-
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.
When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.
She was convicted of murder in a lawful court by her peers serving on the jury. There is no need for further debate. Our society has correctly classified Shakur as a felon. And we don't honor felons with murals. That's it. No further discussion warranted. The crazed liberal faculty can go pound sand. My God, this isn't Berkeley.
-
I see this as a free speech issue. McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either. The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides. Now the campus's liberals shouldn't be surprised by the university's actions here. When the university's rule of decision is the court of public opinion, the results can be disheartening.
As do some others. Just not Marquette's administration.
-
I see this as a free speech issue. McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either. The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides.
No it didn't. It was a workplace issue. Not a free speech one.
-
She was convicted of murder in a lawful court by her peers serving on the jury. There is no need for further debate. Our society has correctly classified Shakur as a felon. And we don't honor felons with murals. That's it. No further discussion warranted. The crazed liberal faculty can go pound sand. My God, this isn't Berkeley.
Jesus was a criminal. MLK was a criminal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.
We honor criminals all the time. I think you need to draw a different line in the sand other than "well, she was convicted."
-
No it didn't. It was a workplace issue. Not a free speech one.
I'll take your ipse dixit statement for what it's worth.
-
I'll take your ipse dixit statement for what it's worth.
Hey, I actually had to look that one up! Have a nice weekend.
-
Jesus was a criminal. MLK was a criminal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.
(http://jenkuznicki.com/wp-content/2014/09/kumbaya-bear.jpg)
-
Jesus was a criminal. MLK was a criminal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.
We honor criminals all the time. I think you need to draw a different line in the sand other than "well, she was convicted."
I'm not going to debate this with you Sultan. She's a convicted murderer who executed a defenseless law enforcement officer as determined by a jury of her peers in a lawful court, not Nelson Mandela, MLK or Jesus Christ.
Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing? Don't you dare answer that.
-
I'm not going to debate this with you Sultan. She's a convicted murderer who executed a defenseless law enforcement officer as determined by a jury of her peers in a lawful court, not Nelson Mandela, MLK or Jesus Christ.
Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing? Don't you dare answer that.
Dude, you drew a line in a sand and made an absolute statement. Never a good thing.
And sorry if you don't less using message boards for their intended purpose.
-
Dude, you drew a line in a sand and made an absolute statement. Never a good thing.
And sorry if you don't less using message boards for their intended purpose.
Ignore. First one. Congrats.
-
Ignore. First one. Congrats.
LOL...you have a good weekend too!
-
LOL...you have a good weekend too!
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk131/Sobriquet47/kumbaya.jpg)
-
I'm not for sure why we all can't get along, ai na?
-
Is the FBI aware of all of this? Because they added her to the most wanted list in 2013.
Yes they are. It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering.
She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint. She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list.
-
I'm not for sure why we all can't get along, ai na?
Cause some people are cop killers, hey?
-
Cause some people are cop killers, hey?
And some people are killer cops, ai'na?
-
Yes they are. It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering.
She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint. She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list.
i'm confused-fbi's analysis of...and she did not handle the gun or shoot it...
then why was she convicted and sent to jail? did she not have competent defense/public defenders? appeal process? or was this the "way things were handled" in the 70's? was it b/c she was a known rable rouser, black panthers(not being racist here)? the 70's were a very volitable time-vietnam, weather underground, manson, et.al.
picked a bad day to hang out with the black panthers or their ilk and be in the vicinity of a dead cop-heyna?
-
i'm confused-fbi's analysis of...and she did not handle the gun or shoot it...
then why was she convicted and sent to jail? did she not have competent defense/public defenders? appeal process? or was this the "way things were handled" in the 70's? was it b/c she was a known rable rouser, black panthers(not being racist here)? the 70's were a very volitable time-vietnam, weather underground, manson, et.al.
picked a bad day to hang out with the black panthers or their ilk and be in the vicinity of a dead cop-heyna?
Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.
-
Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.
nope. that was included in my "confused" part.
if that were the situation presented, as i do not doubt your setting of the scenario with the jury weighted heavily in favor of the plaitiff, should that not have been apparent and taken into account by the defense. how did the defense allow this jury to be chosen? alarms should have gone off. i will admit that i do not know the exact process by which a jury is chosen, but i simply envision it being akin to a draft with each side being able to present to the other who they want on and who they strike. sounds like something that happened in the south, back in "the day"
-
nope. that was included in my "confused" part.
if that were the situation presented, as i do not doubt your setting of the scenario with the jury weighted heavily in favor of the plaitiff, should that not have been apparent and taken into account by the defense. how did the defense allow this jury to be chosen? alarms should have gone off. i will admit that i do not know the exact process by which a jury is chosen, but i simply envision it being akin to a draft with each side being able to present to the other who they want on and who they strike. sounds like something that happened in the south, back in "the day"
That's what a lot claimed happened. A public assigned defender and rigged jury. I have no idea what actually occurred, just wanted to post the "possible" other side of the story. It is this other side of the story that is getting her a lot of modern supporters.
-
To the collegiate basketball Pantheon somewhere up there: Please, please, please, by all that is holy, let the basketball season start.........anon.
Thank you.
-
Yes they are. It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering.
She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint. She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list.
I was being facetious, but okay.
So you're telling me that the FBI knows that it committed a grave injustice against this woman, according to its own evidence.
And yet the FBI willingly draws attention to this case by officially labeling her a terrorist simply because she writes a couple of anti-American poems?
Let me rephrase what I interpret you as saying. The FBI believes that the benefit of capturing a now-Cuban rabble-rouser outweighs the cost of drawing national attention to a case that it grossly botched? The FBI wants revenge for her escape from prison that badly? She rouses the rabble that much?
Conspiracy theories are fun to entertain and all, but they typically don't explain as many facts as the official story and when they do, they often require outlandish assertions in order to do so.
-
To the collegiate basketball Pantheon somewhere up there: Please, please, please, by all that is holy, let the basketball season start.........anon.
Thank you.
Go hang at the Al, bud.
-
Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.
This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.
Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.
-
He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to. Keep pretending that didn't happen.
Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs. Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.
So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.
I missed this. Can you point me in that direction?
-
I missed this. Can you point me in that direction?
Some snippets from the letter to McAdams from Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz (full letter linked below):
Instead of listening to Marquette's repeated requests and cautions not to put student names on the Internet, you applied your own inconsistent rationalizations about whose privacy is entitled to protection. Based upon your years of Internet postings, you knew or should have known that your Internet story would result in vulgar, vile, and threatening communications to Ms. Abbate.
You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students' names in connection with your blog posts. 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 March 2011, you published blog posts regarding a student who was helping to organize a campus performance of The Vagina Monologues. Again, the harmful consequences of your unilateral naming of students were pointed out. You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect.
Read the whole letter. Please. It's pretty damning.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/view?pli=1&sle=true
-
I missed this. Can you point me in that direction?
Page 14 of this letter.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1
-
I find it very strange that anyone is angry about this.
-
I find it very strange that anyone is angry about this.
They don't like his politics and it blinds them. They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.
-
This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.
Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.
Like I said a few times. No idea what actually transpired. I was just referring to the claims made by supporters of Shakur. It would appear that the reports by supporters are being a little loose with details (aka not directly related to the trooper).
The issues with all evidence saying she did not handle or shoot a gun, though are demonstrably correct. As is the ballistics reports saying she was surrendering (first shot) and then fleeing (second shot in the back).
-
They don't like his politics and it blinds them. They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.
McAdams? Absolutely false. I knew a number of conservative professors at Marquette. I know plenty of them now. I don't want to see a single one of them fired.
IMO the reasons for doing so in this case were obvious and plain as day. You simply don't do what he did, especially after being warned about it in the past.
-
They don't like his politics and it blinds them. They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.
And they ignore that MU has been harassing the guy for years.
Also, McAdams just didn't call out some random student on his blog. He called out a student teacher, which is a very different matter, and is part of the contentious nature of this. IMO, if you're teaching a class, you are a teacher first and student second.
-
And they ignore that MU has been harassing the guy for years.
Also, McAdams just didn't call out some random student on his blog. He called out a student teacher, which is a very different matter, and is part of the contentious nature of this. IMO, if you're teaching a class, you are a teacher first and student second.
Your opinion is irrelevant, in that it's contrary to the opinion and policies of Marquette and every other school out there. They make it very clear that a TA is first and foremost a student, and should be treated as such.
How exactly has the university been harassing the guy for years? I mean, other than telling him to stop naming students on his blog.
-
Like I said a few times. No idea what actually transpired. I was just referring to the claims made by supporters of Shakur. It would appear that the reports by supporters are being a little loose with details (aka not directly related to the trooper).
The issues with all evidence saying she did not handle or shoot a gun, though are demonstrably correct. As is the ballistics reports saying she was surrendering (first shot) and then fleeing (second shot in the back).
In New Jersey, being an accomplice to murder is the same as murder. They did not need to prove she pulled the trigger. She was involved in many other crimes, some violent in nature. There is no reason anyone should view such a person as any kind of role model.
-
Read the whole letter. Please. It's pretty damning.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/view?pli=1&sle=true
Wow, I'd never seen that doc. It's great reading, and yes, damning. No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.
Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?
-
This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.
Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.
now i am not as confused-thanks source. i just found it hard to believe they would have been able to railroad assata right thru the system and into jail without some due process. sounds like she had one of the first "dream team" of attorneys before there was such a thing. curious to look up who they were-from wiki which does add a bit of it's own flavor, but gives us some idea of who these lawyers were
Defense attorneys[edit]
Lawyer William Kunstler was the chief of Shakur's defense staff.
Shakur's defense attorneys were William Kunstler (the chief of Shakur's defense staff),[128] Stuart Ball, Robert Bloom, Raymond A. Brown,[130] Stanley Cohen (who died of unknown causes early on in the Turnpike trial), Lennox Hinds, Florynce Kennedy, Louis Myers, Laurence Stern, and Evelyn Williams, Shakur's aunt.[73][128][131] Of these attorneys, Kunstler, Ball, Cohen, Myers, Stern and Williams appeared in court for the turnpike trial.[7][132] Kunstler became involved in Shakur's trials in 1975, when contacted by Williams, and commuted from New York City to New Brunswick every day with Stern.[133]
Her attorneys, in particular Lennox Hinds, were often held in contempt of court, which the National Conference of Black Lawyers cited as an example of systemic bias in the judicial system.[134] The New Jersey Legal Ethics Committee also investigated complaints against Hinds for comparing Shakur's murder trial to "legalized lynching"[135] undertaken by a "kangaroo court."[56][136] Hinds' disciplinary proceeding reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n (1982).[137] According to Kunstler's autobiography, the sizable contingent of New Jersey State Troopers guarding the courthouse were under strict orders from their commander, Col. Clinton Pagano, to completely shun Shakur's defense attorneys.[138]
Judge Appleby also threatened Kunstler with dismissal and contempt of court after he delivered an October 21, 1976 speech at nearby Rutgers University that in part discussed the upcoming trial,[139] but later ruled that Kunstler could represent Shakur.[140] Until obtaining a court order, Williams was forced to strip naked and undergo a body search before each of her visits with Shakur—during which Shakur was shackled to a bed by both ankles.[56] Judge Appleby also refused to investigate a burglary of her defense counsel's office that resulted in the disappearance of trial documents,[129] amounting to half of the legal papers related to her case.[141] Her lawyers also claimed that their offices were bugged.[76]
Tensions and dissension existed among the members of the defense team. Evelyn Williams felt that she was a victim of male prejudice stating that "for the second time in (her) legal career (she) became aware of the disdain with which men perceive women." She expressed "amazement and contempt" for the actions of her fellow lawyers as she watched their "infighting for center stage" during the trial. Other members of the team were concerned that Williams was overly aggressive during her sole cross-examination to the point of passing her notes that read, in part, "You're antagonizing the jury" and "Shut up and sit down."[142]
-
now i am not as confused-thanks source. i just found it hard to believe they would have been able to railroad assata right thru the system and into jail without some due process. sounds like she had one of the first "dream team" of attorneys before there was such a thing. curious to look up who they were-from wiki which does add a bit of it's own flavor, but gives us some idea of who these lawyers were
Defense attorneys[edit]
Lawyer William Kunstler was the chief of Shakur's defense staff.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler
William Moses Kunstler (July 7, 1919 – September 4, 1995) was an American self-described "radical lawyer" and civil rights activist, known for his politically unpopular clients.[1] Kunstler was an active member of the National Lawyers Guild, a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the co-founder of the Law Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the "leading gathering place for radical lawyers in the country".[2]
Kunstler's defense of the "Chicago Seven" from 1969–1970 led The New York Times to label him "the country's most controversial and, perhaps, its best-known lawyer ..."[2] Kunstler is also well known for defending members of the Catonsville Nine, Black Panther Party, Weather Underground Organization, the Attica Prison rioters, and the American Indian Movement.[2] He also won a de facto segregation case regarding the District of Columbia's public schools and "disinterred, singlehandedly" the concept of federal removal jurisdiction in the 1960s.[2] Kunstler refused to defend right-wing groups such as the Minutemen, on the grounds that: "I only defend those whose goals I share. I'm not a lawyer for hire. I only defend those I love."[2]
He was a polarizing figure; many on the right wished to see him disbarred, while many on the left admired him as a "symbol of a certain kind of radical lawyer."[2] Even some other civil rights lawyers regarded Kunstler as a "publicity hound and a hit-and-run lawyer" who "brings cases on Page 1 and wins them on Page 68."[2] Legal writer Sidney Zion quipped that Kunstler was "one of the few lawyers in town who knows how to talk to the press. His stories always check out and he's not afraid to talk to you, and he's got credibility—although you've got to ask sometimes, 'Bill, is it really true?'"[2]
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler
William Moses Kunstler
Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?
-
Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?
Or at least a drawing, a'ina?
-
Or at least a drawing, a'ina?
I think you can purchase that textbook at the Marquette Book Store in the Coloring Book Section
-
Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?
let's see here, one that hustles....
he must be a decendant of pimps, gigolos and/or gynecologists?
;D ;D ;D
-
Wow, I'd never seen that doc. It's great reading, and yes, damning. No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.
Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?
Topper, might I ask you a favor? Do you really want scoop to be the place where private internal communications from Marquette see the light of day? I'm just thinking that the amount of second guessing here while a process unfolds might not be healthy for us or the university. We're all supposed to be on the same team. I'm sure you wouldn't support having Wojo's playbook published. Just a thought. Please consider it.
-
Topper, might I ask you a favor? Do you really want scoop to be the place where private internal communications from Marquette see the light of day? I'm just thinking that the amount of second guessing here while a process unfolds might not be healthy for us or the university. We're all supposed to be on the same team. I'm sure you wouldn't support having Wojo's playbook published. Just a thought. Please consider it.
glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog. It is basically a public document.
-
glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog. It is basically a public document.
I'm not saying it's not out there or that this is the first place it can be seen but I do think that to interject ourselves this deeply might be a bit out of bounds. You all know that letter to the Provost among others that appears earlier in this thread? It was published on scoop before she had even seen it. That can't be in everyone's interest. Some discretion here fellas. Thanks.
-
glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog. It is basically a public document.
Kind of surprised McAdams shared it. I don't think it supports his position at all.
-
Let freedom ring, ai na?
-
Kind of surprised McAdams shared it. I don't think it supports his position at all.
It's part of his openness
-
It's part of his openness
It's part of his hubris.
-
glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog. It is basically a public document.
Bingo, glow. Regardless of whether Scoop has the link or not .. McAdams published it on the internet.
Frankly, if I were MU, I'd want that document public, too. Most reasonable people would read it and agree, instead of throwing MU under the bus.
-
In New Jersey, being an accomplice to murder is the same as murder. They did not need to prove she pulled the trigger. She was involved in many other crimes, some violent in nature. There is no reason anyone should view such a person as any kind of role model.
Plus she fled. I get the whole "I'm innocent but I had to run because the cops would have railroaded me" argument, but if there was any evidence to exonerate her (or even the slightest hint of a miscarriage of justice), don't you think the Innocence Project or some analogue would have taken up her case by now? At the very least, she should have made some sort of concerted effort to demonstrate her innocence instead of fleeing. Heck, ask most Millenials about the "Black Panthers," and they'll think you're talking about the players for Carolina's NFL team who aren't white... nobody's looking to "pin" anything on a bunch of 60's/70's-era rebels today just because they associated with a group. Come home, face the music; if you're innocent, demonstrate it; do your time for fleeing, and get on with your life.
Unless you know you're guilty, then stay in Cuba... we'll see you in about 5-10 years when US/Cuban relations are restored (complete with an extradition treaty).
-
Wow, I'd never seen that doc. It's great reading, and yes, damning. No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.
Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?
Not that I know of. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be unearthed with some effort, but I haven't tried.
-
Not that I know of. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be unearthed with some effort, but I haven't tried.
Just a guess here, but while "outing" a TA may be professionally despicable, "outing" a student is probably illegal.
-
Just a guess here, but while "outing" a TA may be professionally despicable, "outing" a student is probably illegal.
Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.
-
Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.
But please...don't do that.
-
Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.
Does it have to be the University itself? Isn't anyone on MU's payroll or who represents the university in at least some sort of formal capacity (e.g. trustees) subject to FERPA (or similar privacy laws)?
-
Bingo, glow. Regardless of whether Scoop has the link or not .. McAdams published it on the internet.
Frankly, if I were MU, I'd want that document public, too. Most reasonable people would read it and agree, instead of throwing MU under the bus.
I'm not very confident in your last sentence there: http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
-
I'm not very confident in your last sentence there: http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
From this link:
While there is some reason to question Holz’s critique (as McAdams does on his blog), none of that debate is relevant to the attempt to fire McAdams. Abbate was not a student of McAdams, and he was under no obligation to choose more private criticism of her teaching methods. Nor did McAdams have any obligation to contact everyone involved for comment before writing a blog post.
One can conclude that McAdams is a terrible journalist, and a terrible person, and that changes nothing about the threat of academic freedom created by this dismissal, and the lack of any basis for it under Marquette’s policies.
McAdams’ blog is a classic example of extramural utterances. McAdams’ blog is not part of his teaching or his research. It is an expression of his own opinions.
Holz’s letter declares: “faculty members have voiced concerns about how they could become targets in your blog based upon items they might choose to include in a class syllabus. Your conduct thus impairs the very freedoms of teaching and expression that you vehemently purport to promote. Again, the AAUP has called upon University governing boards and administration to exercise their ‘special duty not only to set an outstanding example of tolerance, but also to challenge boldly and condemn immediately serious breaches of civility.’”
This is a complete distortion of the AAUP’s statements. 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.
Holz’s letter emphasizes one section of Marquette’s statement on academic freedom, that a professor “should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others.” The AAUP has made clear that its statement that professors “should” be accurate is moral exhortation, not an enforceable standard for punishment. Obviously, if any professor could be fired for any kind of alleged inaccuracy in any sentence, public or private, then tenure would be meaningless.
Marquette’s policy on academic freedom also declares about a professor, “When he/she speaks or writes as a citizen, he/she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” Marquette cannot invoke a distorted interpretation of its academic freedom policy to justify firing a professor and then ignore the clear prohibition on doing so in the same policy.
Section 306 of Marquette’s policy, which details the reasons to fire a professor, explicitly declares: “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.”
And Section 307.07.2 declares, “Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution.”
These policies explicitly prohibit the punishment of John McAdams for his extramural utterances. Marquette’s decision to fire McAdams, like its earlier decision to suspend him, is a violation of the AAUP’s standards for academic freedom and Marquette’s requirements in its policies.
-
I'm not very confident in your last sentence there: http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/
What....A blog written in association with the official magazine of the AAUP comes out in favor of a fired professor???
SHOCKING!!!!
-
What....A blog written in association with the official magazine of the AAUP comes out in favor of a fired professor???
SHOCKING!!!!
Does this mean you are going to ignore its arguments because you think the source has a conflict of interest?
-
About as shocking as a university claiming that a professor's firing was not a byproduct of his unsavory political views, but rather due to the fact that he publicly criticized a graduate student's teaching practices.
-
About as shocking as a university claiming that a professor's firing was not a byproduct of his unsavory political views, but rather due to the fact that he publicly criticized a graduate student's teaching practices.
Again, keep ignoring that many other Marquette professors share his political views - and have not been fired.
But only one...ONE...has called out students in his blog after being warned about not doing so.
Pretty easy to see who the outlier is.
-
Again, keep ignoring that many other Marquette professors share his political views - and have not been fired.
But only one...ONE...has called out students in his blog after being warned about not doing so.
Pretty easy to see who the outlier is.
This does not prove the point you want it to. The fact that Marquette hasn't fired every conservative on campus does not justify firing the one conservative who is particularly vocal.
You think naming a TA on a blog should be grounds for firing a tenured professor; I don't. You've accepted the university's version of the story; I don't.
-
You think naming a TA on a blog should be grounds for firing a tenured professor; I don't. You've accepted the university's version of the story; I don't.
It's easiest to make an argument when you just ignore facts.
The issue isn't naming a TA. It is repeatedly outing students and putting them in a position to be publicly scorned and threatened by the right. It is outing students after being previously reprimanded for outing students.
If you want to make the argument that faculty should be able to hold students up to public ridicule whenever they like, then make that argument. Otherwise, arguing for a version of your facts is pointless.
-
It's easiest to make an argument when you just ignore facts.
The issue isn't naming a TA. It is repeatedly outing students and putting them in a position to be publicly scorned and threatened by the right. It is outing students after being previously reprimanded for outing students.
If you want to make the argument that faculty should be able to hold students up to public ridicule whenever they like, then make that argument. Otherwise, arguing for a version of your facts is pointless.
I don't believe naming the instructor of a class whose instruction you are criticizing should be grounds for a tenured professors' firing, regardless of whether the professor had been previously warned about mentioning the names of undergrads.
-
Isn't there a McAdams Topic thread already
-
I don't believe naming the instructor of a class whose instruction you are criticizing should be grounds for a tenured professors' firing, regardless of whether the professor had been previously warned about mentioning the names of undergrads.
And he is naming an instructor and class that he is not directly involved in. So he is not relying on his direct University position for this information. In other words, he is being fired for engaging in gossip, just like everyone else does.
-
Does this mean you are going to ignore its arguments because you think the source has a conflict of interest?
We have addressed these arguments before, but I will touch on them one last time.
From the blog:
"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."
This is an absolutely moronic statement. If you can be "condemned" for something, you certainly can be "punished" for it as well. This the AAUP trying to have it both ways. "Hey you have to be civil to one another, but if you aren't, don't worry about it because you can't be punished."
That is false. Professors can (and should) face disciplinary action up to, and including, termination should they repeatedly act in a manner that is inappropriate for anyone else at the institution.
-
This does not prove the point you want it to. The fact that Marquette hasn't fired every conservative on campus does not justify firing the one conservative who is particularly vocal.
You think naming a TA on a blog should be grounds for firing a tenured professor; I don't. You've accepted the university's version of the story; I don't.
I don't believe naming the instructor of a class whose instruction you are criticizing should be grounds for a tenured professors' firing, regardless of whether the professor had been previously warned about mentioning the names of undergrads.
So what exactly do you believe then?
Do you believe the University's story that she was fired for mentioning the name of a student in his blog, but the University made the wrong decision? Or was this just a convenient excuse for firing an outspoken conservative professor?
It can't be both. The former I can understand because you are simply saying the level of punishment was too harsh. The latter means a level of maliciousness that would be hard for me to believe.
-
And he is naming an instructor and class that he is not directly involved in. So he is not relying on his direct University position for this information. In other words, he is being fired for engaging in gossip, just like everyone else does.
So gossiping is now an academic pursuit, deserving of protection under the guise of academic freedom?
-
And he is naming an instructor and class that he is not directly involved in. So he is not relying on his direct University position for this information. In other words, he is being fired for engaging in gossip, just like everyone else does.
Calling her an instructor still does not carry any weight except to those trying to make a point. She was a student at MU.
-
So gossiping is now an academic pursuit, deserving of protection under the guise of academic freedom?
No, but gossiping it not something you lose tenure and get fired over.
-
So what exactly do you believe then?
Do you believe the University's story that she was fired for mentioning the name of a student in his blog, but the University made the wrong decision? Or was this just a convenient excuse for firing an outspoken conservative professor?
It can't be both. The former I can understand because you are simply saying the level of punishment was too harsh. The latter means a level of maliciousness that would be hard for me to believe.
I think McAdams was fired because the administration wanted to prove its bona fides to the LGBT community following the dean hiring fiasco. That is the only way it makes any sense to me.
-
We have addressed these arguments before, but I will touch on them one last time.
From the blog:
"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."
This is an absolutely moronic statement. If you can be "condemned" for something, you certainly can be "punished" for it as well. This the AAUP trying to have it both ways. "Hey you have to be civil to one another, but if you aren't, don't worry about it because you can't be punished."
That is false. Professors can (and should) face disciplinary action up to, and including, termination should they repeatedly act in a manner that is inappropriate for anyone else at the institution.
It's not just the AAUP. Universities do this all the time.
Duke poli sci professor says some racist stuff, comparing Asians to Blacks. Duke PR person: "The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse,"
http://abc11.com/news/duke-professor-makes-controversial-comments-about-race/726470/
Incoming BU sociology professor says white males are *the* problem in universities. BU president: "We are disappointed and concerned by statements that reduce individuals to stereotypes on the basis of a broad category such as sex, race, or ethnicity. I believe Dr. Grundy's remarks fit this characterization."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/living/feat-boston-university-saida-grundy-race-tweets/
Condemning comments without firing the professor is a way to distance the institution from the content while still respecting academic freedom. I see this somewhat analogous to the ACLU defending the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom to assemble, despite not agreeing with what goes on when they assemble. Trying to have it both ways? I mean, I guess...
-
I think McAdams was fired because the administration wanted to prove its bona fides to the LGBT community following the dean hiring fiasco. That is the only way it makes any sense to me.
See that makes no sense to me. And I guess I will leave it at that.
-
It's not just the AAUP. Universities do this all the time.
Duke poli sci professor says some racist stuff, comparing Asians to Blacks. Duke PR person: "The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse,"
http://abc11.com/news/duke-professor-makes-controversial-comments-about-race/726470/
Incoming BU sociology professor says white males are *the* problem in universities. BU president: "We are disappointed and concerned by statements that reduce individuals to stereotypes on the basis of a broad category such as sex, race, or ethnicity. I believe Dr. Grundy's remarks fit this characterization."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/living/feat-boston-university-saida-grundy-race-tweets/
Condemning comments without firing the professor is a way to distance the institution from the content while still respecting academic freedom. I see this somewhat analogous to the ACLU defending the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom to assemble, despite not agreeing with what goes on when they assemble. Trying to have it both ways? I mean, I guess...
What some seem to be missing, over and over again, is that McAdams isn't be fired for his comments. He's being fired for publicly holding up a student for scorn and ridicule (intentionally), not to mention threats (i would think unintentionally).
That said, a simple Google search can produce numerous cases of professors being disciplined, and even losing their jobs, over comments made to and about students, or just comments in general.
Like these:
http://www.universityherald.com/articles/4451/20130905/michigan-state-university-suspends-prof-william-penn-anti-republican-rant.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/steven-salaita-university-of-illinois-fired_n_5658806.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/university-florida-professor-fired-comments-latin-women/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/18/university-oregon-teacher-fired-after-threatening-student-protesters-in-bizarre/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24churchill.html?_r=0
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/professor_fired_over_va_tech_discussiondemonstration/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/01/02/harvard_professor_fired_over_column_slams_critics/
It's fine to argue, if it's what you believe, that McAdams' punishment was too harsh, but let's not act as if Marquette is doing something terribly unheard of here.
-
It's not just the AAUP. Universities do this all the time.
Duke poli sci professor says some racist stuff, comparing Asians to Blacks. Duke PR person: "The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse,"
http://abc11.com/news/duke-professor-makes-controversial-comments-about-race/726470/
Incoming BU sociology professor says white males are *the* problem in universities. BU president: "We are disappointed and concerned by statements that reduce individuals to stereotypes on the basis of a broad category such as sex, race, or ethnicity. I believe Dr. Grundy's remarks fit this characterization."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/living/feat-boston-university-saida-grundy-race-tweets/
Condemning comments without firing the professor is a way to distance the institution from the content while still respecting academic freedom. I see this somewhat analogous to the ACLU defending the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom to assemble, despite not agreeing with what goes on when they assemble. Trying to have it both ways? I mean, I guess...
I didn't say they *had* to be punished. I said they *can* be punished.
What some seem to be missing, over and over again, is that McAdams isn't be fired for his comments. He's being fired for publicly holding up a student for scorn and ridicule (intentionally), not to mention threats (i would think unintentionally).
That said, a simple Google search can produce numerous cases of professors being disciplined, and even losing their jobs, over comments made to and about students, or just comments in general.
Like these:
http://www.universityherald.com/articles/4451/20130905/michigan-state-university-suspends-prof-william-penn-anti-republican-rant.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/steven-salaita-university-of-illinois-fired_n_5658806.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/university-florida-professor-fired-comments-latin-women/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/18/university-oregon-teacher-fired-after-threatening-student-protesters-in-bizarre/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24churchill.html?_r=0
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/professor_fired_over_va_tech_discussiondemonstration/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/01/02/harvard_professor_fired_over_column_slams_critics/
It's fine to argue, if it's what you believe, that McAdams' punishment was too harsh, but let's not act as if Marquette is doing something terribly unheard of here.
Bingo.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-faculty-criticize-action-on-assata-shakur-mural-b99508152z1-305182641.html
Has anyone seen the actual letters sent to the administration? There's text on pg. 13 of this thread of two separate letters, but I'm curious as to what was actually sent, and whether 60 faculty and staff actually signed the letter. I figured you could probably get a dozen signatures across the faculty, but 60 seems like a lot.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-faculty-criticize-action-on-assata-shakur-mural-b99508152z1-305182641.html
Has anyone seen the actual letters sent to the administration? There's text on pg. 13 of this thread of two separate letters, but I'm curious as to what was actually sent, and whether 60 faculty and staff actually signed the letter. I figured you could probably get a dozen signatures across the faculty, but 60 seems like a lot.
Back of the envelope. Suppose that there are 10 faculty who signed the letter from 6 departments (history, poli sci, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and hodge podge X studies profs). Sounds about right.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-faculty-criticize-action-on-assata-shakur-mural-b99508152z1-305182641.html
Has anyone seen the actual letters sent to the administration? There's text on pg. 13 of this thread of two separate letters, but I'm curious as to what was actually sent, and whether 60 faculty and staff actually signed the letter. I figured you could probably get a dozen signatures across the faculty, but 60 seems like a lot.
Back of the envelope. Suppose that there are 10 faculty who signed the letter from 6 departments (history, poli sci, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and hodge podge X studies profs). Sounds about right.
And are they all tenured professors? Adjuncts? If a TA signed it, does that count?
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-faculty-criticize-action-on-assata-shakur-mural-b99508152z1-305182641.html
Has anyone seen the actual letters sent to the administration? There's text on pg. 13 of this thread of two separate letters, but I'm curious as to what was actually sent, and whether 60 faculty and staff actually signed the letter. I figured you could probably get a dozen signatures across the faculty, but 60 seems like a lot.
Marquette has 700 full time tenure track faculty members. 500 part time. Is 60 a lot in that context?
-
Marquette has 700 full time tenure track faculty members. 500 part time. Is 60 a lot in that context?
Give me a sec...I'm coming up with 5.00, repeating of course, percentage of faculty members that signed the letter.
-
Give me a sec...I'm coming up with 5.00, repeating of course, percentage of faculty members that signed the letter.
Well... that's a lot better than we usually do.
-
Marquette has 700 full time tenure track faculty members. 500 part time. Is 60 a lot in that context?
I never thought how many faculty members there were at Marquette so that number seemed unusually high. We have access to the UDub GAL so I did a quick pull and there are 4,428 faculty at the Seattle campus. That really surprises me.
-
I never thought how many faculty members there were at Marquette so that number seemed unusually high. We have access to the UDub GAL so I did a quick pull and there are 4,428 faculty at the Seattle campus. That really surprises me.
I assume these numbers include a fair number of adjuncts... how many full-time, tenured professors?
-
I never thought how many faculty members there were at Marquette so that number seemed unusually high. We have access to the UDub GAL so I did a quick pull and there are 4,428 faculty at the Seattle campus. That really surprises me.
Yeah your post made me rethink the information I received.
According to Marquette's web site, Marquette has 11,745 students (undergraduate, graduate and professional) and a ratio of 14:1. That would mean a faculty FTE of about 840. So that could be 700 full time, but not 500 part time. I wonder if the 500 figure I got includes all non-faculty employees. (administration, non-faculty instructors, etc.)
-
Seems right
If the 11,000 plus students average 4 classes that's 44000 classes
If the ave FT instructor teaches 3 and the ave PT teaches 2 that's (700*3=2100)plus (500 * 2 = 1000)
44000/3100=14.19
-
I assume these numbers include a fair number of adjuncts... how many full-time, tenured professors?
I don't know the composition of the faculty numbers. Two of my colleagues are full professors at Fred Hutch/UDub and two on the tech side were adjuncts in the past (UDub has a program with Microsoft where MS technologists teach classes on their domain expertise at UDub.)
The use of industry experts as adjuncts is an interesting concept. Marquette might have a similar opportunity being in Milwaukee. Does anyone know if they are doing this?
-
Well... that's a lot better than we usually do.
Never gets old. For me, at least.
-
I don't know the composition of the faculty numbers. Two of my colleagues are full professors at Fred Hutch/UDub and two on the tech side were adjuncts in the past (UDub has a program with Microsoft where MS technologists teach classes on their domain expertise at UDub.)
The use of industry experts as adjuncts is an interesting concept. Marquette might have a similar opportunity being in Milwaukee. Does anyone know if they are doing this?
Yes. I don't know to what extent, but I do know they have similar people on their staff. They wouldn't be classified as "faculty" however.
-
Yes. I don't know to what extent, but I do know they have similar people on their staff. They wouldn't be classified as "faculty" however.
The two colleagues who did stints at UDub as adjuncts were considered faculty members. MS included that terminology in their official corporate bios.
I like the idea of bringing in expertise from industry to the academic world. This has long been done for statesmen and politicians but much less so for people from industry. I have always questioned why practical perspective from business was devalued by tertiary education.
-
Never gets old. For me, at least.
I'd say the YouTube gets at least three hits a year from me on average... And I haven't played in 7 years.
-
is this old news? if it has been posted somewhere else, i apologize-petition/protest of mural and firing of gsrc director susannah bartlow
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/06/petition-protesting-removal-of-cop.html
was there a petition for/against the removal of prof. mccadams?
-
It's old news. The petition began immediately after she was fired. It really isn't going anywhere and isn't the sign of the apocalypse like McAdams portrays it.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/21/marquette-university-decision-to-paint-over-mural-convicted-cop-killer-draws/
Why am I not surprised
Who signed it?