MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on May 06, 2016, 08:21:49 AM
-
The Wall Street Journal
Speechless on Campus
John McAdams sues to keep his tenured position at Marquette.
May 5, 2016 7:21 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/speechless-on-campus-1462490490
We told you recently about Marquette University professor John McAdams, who writes an independent blog called the Marquette Warrior. In 2014 a Marquette student told Mr. McAdams about an exchange in which his philosophy instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, told him that his views about gay marriage were homophobic and not open for discussion in her classroom.
Mr. McAdams blogged about the exchange and Ms. Abbate got nasty letters, a result that prompted the school to suspend Mr. McAdams, bar him from setting foot on campus and threaten him with termination unless he admitted by April 14 that his actions were “reckless.” In a letter to Marquette President Michael Lovell, Mr. McAdams declined to do so. (http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-04-Signed-Letter-to-Lovell.pdf)
The University did not rescind its position and Mr. McAdams Monday filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on grounds that the school has abrogated academic freedoms it guarantees. As a private university, Marquette is not subject to the First Amendment, but the school guarantees academic freedom by contract.
According to the school’s faculty statutes, “dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate, but by that standard freedom of speech is limited by what we can predict others in the online free-for-all will say about what we write.
Universities are meant to be bastions of vigorous debate. When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?
-
The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate,
That is an incomplete assertion.
-
The Wall Street Journal
Speechless on Campus
John McAdams sues to keep his tenured position at Marquette.
May 5, 2016 7:21 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/speechless-on-campus-1462490490
We told you recently about Marquette University professor John McAdams, who writes an independent blog called the Marquette Warrior. In 2014 a Marquette student told Mr. McAdams about an exchange in which his philosophy instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, told him that his views about gay marriage were homophobic and not open for discussion in her classroom.
Mr. McAdams blogged about the exchange and Ms. Abbate got nasty letters, a result that prompted the school to suspend Mr. McAdams, bar him from setting foot on campus and threaten him with termination unless he admitted by April 14 that his actions were “reckless.” In a letter to Marquette President Michael Lovell, Mr. McAdams declined to do so. (http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-04-Signed-Letter-to-Lovell.pdf)
The University did not rescind its position and Mr. McAdams Monday filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on grounds that the school has abrogated academic freedoms it guarantees. As a private university, Marquette is not subject to the First Amendment, but the school guarantees academic freedom by contract.
According to the school’s faculty statutes, “dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate, but by that standard freedom of speech is limited by what we can predict others in the online free-for-all will say about what we write.
Universities are meant to be bastions of vigorous debate. When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?
Except that's not at all what happened here.
-
Are unsigned Op-Ed's normal? Why do both the McAdams Op-Eds seem to not carry the name of the author?
I think I asked this during the last Op-Ed, so if someone responded and I missed it, I apologize.
-
Are unsigned Op-Ed's normal? Why do both the McAdams Op-Eds seem to not carry the name of the author?
I think I asked this during the last Op-Ed, so if someone responded and I missed it, I apologize.
Yes.
-
A far right publication lying about how a conservative was picked on.
Lordy, Lordy, never thought I'd see the day.
-
Yes.
Thanks
-
Except that's not at all what happened here.
How so?
This can't be the first time that a professor has publicly criticized a TA, or any student for that matter. Was McAdams fired simply because he criticized a TA? Or was it because of the public response/follow to his criticism. If McAdams wrote the blog and instead the response was overwhelmingly favorable to the TA, do you honestly think McAdams would have been fired? If McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, would McAdams had been fired?
You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but you can't ignore that "strangers on the Internet" played a major role here.
-
That is an incomplete assertion.
When one equivocates, however slightly, one deviates from the truth.
The op-ed piece defines the essence of the matter.
-
A far right publication lying about how a conservative was picked on.
Lordy, Lordy, never thought I'd see the day.
the
WSJ is a liberal newspaper with a conservative editorial board
-
When one equivocates, however slightly, one deviates from the truth.
The op-ed piece defines the essence of the matter.
Yes. The op-ed deviated from the truth.
-
the
WSJ is a liberal newspaper with a conservative editorial board
The key issue is that once again Marquette is cast in an extremely negative light on a very public stage. The specifics are lost on people. The reality is that a foundational publication which shapes the intellectual optics of the world has cast Marquette in a terrible light.
This whole matter could have been avoided but wasn't. A group of bullies abused their authority and attacked a colleague because they didn't like him.
Waiting for Mike Lovell to tweet a blistering retort.
-
Yes. The op-ed deviated from the truth.
How so? The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.
-
How so? The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.
Exactly. People here keep adding "yes, buts..." that stray from the essence.
Marquette took umbrage with McAdams' naming Abbate then allowed their own administrators to run roughshod over established procedures as they punished this man, not for justified moral indignation, but spiteful, vindictive retribution.
What made this amateurish was having the CEO of the enterprise engage in a public spitball fight with the aggrieved employee. Truly, truly embarrassing.
-
Marquette took umbrage with McAdams' naming Abbate then allowed their own administrators to run roughshod over established procedures as they punished this man, not for justified moral indignation, but spiteful, vindictive retribution.
Actually they followed procedures. Seriously, it is like you are being willfully ignorant for some reason.
-
How so? The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.
Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about. It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.
The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue. IMO it is a workplace issue.
-
Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about. It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.
The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue. IMO it is a workplace issue.
Agreed with this whole post. Do you know what the past incidents were that led to the warning(s)?
-
Agreed with this whole post. Do you know what the past incidents were that led to the warning(s)?
From Marquette's letter (I bolded a sentence.):
"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. (p.14)"
-
Actually they followed procedures. Seriously, it is like you are being willfully ignorant for some reason.
Did you read the report? The University acknowledged that administrators did not act properly.
I suggest you read the report promulgated by Marquette. Otherwise you will remain blissfully ignorant of the culpability of Marquette administrators in creating the mess that is tarnishing the reputation of our alma mater.
-
Did you read the report? The University acknowledged that administrators did not act properly.
I suggest you read the report promulgated by Marquette. Otherwise you will remain blissfully ignorant of the culpability of Marquette administrators in creating the mess that is tarnishing the reputation of our alma mater.
I'm not trying to be difficult here.
But the report was generated via the procedures in place. The faculty committee made a recommendation. Lovell accepted it with the condition of an apology.
You can argue that their procedure is faulty. You can argue that the procedure had a bad outcome. You cannot argue that they didn't follow their procedure.
-
Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about. It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.
The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue. IMO it is a workplace issue.
Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts. No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing. That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.
When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech?
-
Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts. No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing. That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.
When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech?
I have no problem whatsoever with free speech so you can go build your strawman elsewhere.
The reason I say it is a workplace issue is that he twice did the same exact thing (name a student), twice was warned about it, and twice acknowledged that it was a problem. Then he did it again.
-
I have no problem whatsoever with free speech so you can go build your strawman elsewhere.
The reason I say it is a workplace issue is that he twice did the same exact thing (name a student), twice was warned about it, and twice acknowledged that it was a problem. Then he did it again.
I wasn't aware there was some type of firewall between workplace issues and free speech issues: the two obviously overlap regularly.
If you are comfortable with universities firing people for what third parties say on the internet and don't see how free speech is implicated, then God help you.
-
No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing.
This is actually not a fact. This is the assertion that this article is attempting to make.
-
No. I have trouble with faculty members calling out students repeatedly in a blog when they have acknowledged the problem with doing so in the past.
I have trouble with faculty members who don't go through the proper channels in determining the source of the issue at hand.
I have trouble with faculty members turning themselves into martyrs when a University panel determined that he should be reinstated, and the President of the University is follows that recommendation as long as he apologizes to the student.
-
This is actually not a fact. This is the assertion that this article is attempting to make.
It is a fact. Whatever context you try to construct around it won't change it.
-
It is a fact. Whatever context you try to construct around it won't change it.
Can you please explain how that it is a fact? I'm very interested.
It is a fact that McAdams was fired. It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams. It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.
It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on. Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.
-
Can you please explain how that it is a fact? I'm very interested.
It is a fact that McAdams was fired. It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams. It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.
It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on. Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.
It is a fact because "but for" the comments of anonymous people on the internet, McAdams would not have been fired by Marquette. That is indisputable.
You can say Marquette didn't fire him because of his political beliefs (although I'm dubious). You can say Marquette didn't fire him because other administrators disliked him (although I'm extremely dubious). But you have to accept that the comments of unidentified third parties on the internet played a significant role in Marquette's decision to fire McAdams.
-
Can you please explain how that it is a fact? I'm very interested.
It is a fact that McAdams was fired. It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams. It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.
It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on. Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.
Again... if McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, do you honestly think that McAdams would have been fired?
-
McAdams to Liberty with Dawson?
-
McAdams to Liberty with Dawson?
What, not Iowa State?
-
It is a fact because "but for" the comments of anonymous people on the internet, McAdams would not have been fired by Marquette. That is indisputable.
You can say Marquette didn't fire him because of his political beliefs (although I'm dubious). You can say Marquette didn't fire him because other administrators disliked him (although I'm extremely dubious). But you have to accept that the comments of unidentified third parties on the internet played a significant role in Marquette's decision to fire McAdams.
Ok.....I can hear that argument (even though, again, it would not be an actual fact). But you and this article is alluding to that being the driving/only factor.
"When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?"
Did his audience play a factor into this, of course. This would not have been the issue it is today if, as Benny point out, he had 2 followers. But the reason he was fired is not because of third parties. The third parties would not have acted a certain way had it not been for his conduct towards the student for which he had previously been warned.
-
Ok.....I can hear that argument (even though, again, it would not be an actual fact). But you and this article is alluding to that being the driving/only factor.
"When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?"
Did his audience play a factor into this, of course. This would not have been the issue it is today if, as Benny point out, he had 2 followers. But the reason he was fired is not because of third parties. The third parties would not have acted a certain way had it not been for his conduct towards the student for which he had previously been warned.
Well that just drives to the heart of the matter, doesn't it. Can you be held responsible for the reactions of third parties to your speech? Marquette and you (apparently) say yes. I say no. The United States Supreme Court says no, unless your speech is creating an immediate threat to public safety.
-
Well that just drives to the heart of the matter, doesn't it. Can you be held responsible for the reactions of third parties to your speech. Marquette and you (apparently) say yes. I say no. The United States Supreme Court says no, unless your speech is creating an immediate threat to public safety.
Haha, ummmm I dont think you can be responsible for the reactions of third parties. Not sure where you are getting that from my posts.
I do think you should be held responsible for your own actions though. McAdams violated the conduct policy of his employer, was warned about it. Then violated it again. I think that is worthy of being fired for.
I do agree that the actions of third parties in this case helped draw attention to the matter here, and hence played a factor.
-
It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.
It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on. Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.
You are wrong.
From the MUFHC Report:
The Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct with respect to his November 9, 2014
blog post clearly and substantially failed to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties. Specifically, Dr. McAdams violated his obligation to fellow members of the Marquette community by recklessly, albeit indirectly, causing harm to Ms. Abbate through his conduct, harm
that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justifiable. Furthermore, the Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct was seriously irresponsible, and that through his conduct, Dr. McAdams’s value—that is, his fitness to fulfill his responsibilities as a professor—will probably be substantially impaired in the absence of the imposition of any penalty, given his demonstrated failure to recognize his essential obligations to fellow members of the Marquette community.
-
Haha, ummmm I dont think you can be responsible for the reactions of third parties. Not sure where you are getting that from my posts.
I do think you should be held responsible for your own actions though. McAdams violated the conduct policy of his employer, was warned about it. Then violated it again. I think that is worthy of being fired for.
I do agree that the actions of third parties in this case helped draw attention to the matter here, and hence played a factor.
Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that. From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:
"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."
Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism.
-
Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that. From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:
"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."
Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism.
Well, it demonstrates that his actions had the consequence of exposing her, yes. It definitely does not demonstrate that is the reason why they are punishing him.
-
Well, it demonstrates that his actions had the consequence of exposing her, yes. It definitely does not demonstrate that is the reason why they are punishing him.
You must win a lot of jury trials with arguments like these...
-
You are wrong.
From the MUFHC Report:
The Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct with respect to his November 9, 2014
blog post clearly and substantially failed to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties. Specifically, Dr. McAdams violated his obligation to fellow members of the Marquette community by recklessly, albeit indirectly, causing harm to Ms. Abbate through his conduct, harm
that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justifiable. Furthermore, the Committee concludes that the University has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McAdams’s conduct was seriously irresponsible, and that through his conduct, Dr. McAdams’s value—that is, his fitness to fulfill his responsibilities as a professor—will probably be substantially impaired in the absence of the imposition of any penalty, given his demonstrated failure to recognize his essential obligations to fellow members of the Marquette community.
I'm assuming you are stating that I'm wrong in regards to the bolded part below?
Can you please explain how that it is a fact? I'm very interested.
It is a fact that McAdams was fired. It is an opinion that he was fired because the administration didn't like McAdams. It is an opinion that he was fired because of what third parties said on the internet.
It is a fact that MU has publicly stated he was fired due to his conduct towards another student which he had previously been warned on. Now on that same token, I would still consider it opinion whether or not he was fired for that exact reason.
Because the rest of your quote there supports that he was not punished due to the actions of others. That is not brought up once in there.
In regards to the bolded part above, I will bring up Sultan's earlier post on this:
From Marquette's letter (I bolded a sentence.):
"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. (p.14)"
-
You must win a lot of jury trials with arguments like these...
If I violated my employer's code of conduct by publicly criticizing my boss on Facebook, and my boss then endured a bunch of hate and threats from my Facebook friends, which then brought attention to my post. And then I was subsequently fired.... Would I have been fired because of the hate and threats that others sent? Or would I have been fired for violating my employer's code of conduct and publicly criticizing my boss?
I'm quite positive it would be the latter.
-
I'm not trying to be difficult here.
But the report was generated via the procedures in place. The faculty committee made a recommendation. Lovell accepted it with the condition of an apology.
You can argue that their procedure is faulty. You can argue that the procedure had a bad outcome. You cannot argue that they didn't follow their procedure.
Stop being obtuse.
You are correct, and we agree, that the MUFHC report was generated in accordance with established university procedures.
Everything prior to that was not. The MUFHC report lists multiple specifics of how Marquette administrators acted in a seemingly cavalier manner, with complete disregard for expected processes, in handling McAdams over decades. The report notes how nothing was ever documented about McAdams' behavior for decades. The report further states that Marquette administrators punished McAdams in this case in ways that are counter to established disciplinary procedures.
The report goes on to point out how administrators not just ignored "JD" but actively worked against him. (This is perhaps the most galling admission in the report.) But as faculty and staff sought to persecute the undergrad, JD, they did nothing to correct the inappropriate behaviors exhibited to Abbate.
The report is an indictment of Marquette's administrators.
-
The report says a lot of things. Including (bolded were added):
"Dr. McAdams has a considerable amount of academic freedom to express whatever opinions he wishes on his blog, no matter how offensive some find them, and he has exercised that freedom without formal sanction from the University administration for ten years and three thousand blog posts. But academic freedom has its limits, limits that are slightly more pronounced in the case of extramural statements, and Dr. McAdams’s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified. The Committee concludes that our determination that discretionary cause exists to a level sufficient to justify a penalty of suspension will not “impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”
So does the report point out some problems at some of the administrative levels at the university? Yes. And I have acknowledged as such.
But the report also says that McAdams has had plenty of leeway in terms of exercising his academic freedom, and that HIS ACTIONS were reckless. He isn't being punished for actions other did.
So if you are going to use the report to support what you argue, you can't simply ignore what it also says later on.
-
The report says a lot of things. Including (bolded were added):
"Dr. McAdams has a considerable amount of academic freedom to express whatever opinions he wishes on his blog, no matter how offensive some find them, and he has exercised that freedom without formal sanction from the University administration for ten years and three thousand blog posts. But academic freedom has its limits, limits that are slightly more pronounced in the case of extramural statements, and Dr. McAdams’s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified. The Committee concludes that our determination that discretionary cause exists to a level sufficient to justify a penalty of suspension will not “impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”
So does the report point out some problems at some of the administrative levels at the university? Yes. And I have acknowledged as such.
But the report also says that McAdams has had plenty of leeway in terms of exercising his academic freedom, and that HIS ACTIONS were reckless. He isn't being punished for actions other did.
So if you are going to use the report to support what you argue, you can't simply ignore what it also says later on.
Your quoted language is the whole point: Marquette's position is that McAdams' actions were "reckless" because they "indirectly" caused Abbate harm. Saying McAdams "indirectly" caused Abbate harm is the equivalent of holding him responsible for third parties' actions.
-
Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts. No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing. That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.
When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech?
What do you mean when did they flip? That has always been the case with them. Free speech is not one of their strong suits. Stifling it has been for generations.
-
If I violated my employer's code of conduct by publicly criticizing my boss on Facebook, and my boss then endured a bunch of hate and threats from my Facebook friends, which then brought attention to my post. And then I was subsequently fired.... Would I have been fired because of the hate and threats that others sent? Or would I have been fired for violating my employer's code of conduct and publicly criticizing my boss?
I'm quite positive it would be the latter.
I have pointed out here that a world leading corporation will never fire someone for writing something on their own time if it does not disclose trade secrets, misuses corporate assets, or causes material harm to the enterprise.
This is not to say one will not be dismissed by the corporation. They will use other means.
-
i sense there are some here who feel like MU is the victim of poor journalism and thus feeling victimized themselves by trying to defend MU from getting their arse kicked on a national forum. if i remember correctly, someone here initially poo-poo'd the national exposure saying it much to do about nothing and that it would all just blow over...hmmm
as for the complaints about how the WSJ didn't tell the whole story, from the defenders of MU"s point of view, one thought-welcome to our world
-
The key issue is that once again Marquette is cast in an extremely negative light on a very public stage. The specifics are lost on people. The reality is that a foundational publication which shapes the intellectual optics of the world has cast Marquette in a terrible light.
This whole matter could have been avoided but wasn't. A group of bullies abused their authority and attacked a colleague because they didn't like him.
Waiting for Mike Lovell to tweet a blistering retort.
Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case. Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.
-
Your defense of Marquette's position is what makes me think that. From Marquette's statement on McAdams' complaint:
"Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the attention that Dr. McAdams and his legal team continue to focus on our former graduate student. He continues to call her out by name in his blog, and even recently went out of his way to name the university where she is continuing her studies today. These actions have exposed her to additional harassment, more than a year after she left Marquette."
Demonstrates that Marquette is punishing McAdams for "exposing" Abbate to third party criticism.
The bolded is really key. The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this. He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue.
Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.
Instead, he pushed the issue further. If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.
MU did the right thing...period.
-
MU did the right thing...period.
MU did the right thing...comma, in your opinion. Period.
-
Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case. Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.
how do you know this? the full repercussions have yet to be felt or seen. this is akin to boiling the frog...by the time it get's too hot for the frog to realize it's too hot, he's cooked. BUT, not to worry; MU has a bottomless pit of money it can spend on these pesky legal things-'eyn'er? they still have mrs fill-in-the blank's endowment to tap
-
Something is going on between McAdams and Marquette? How come nobody said anything?
-
The bolded is really key. The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this. He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue.
Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.
Instead, he pushed the issue further. If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.
MU did the right thing...period.
Eventually, the bully on the playground who repeatedly picks on second graders needs to be taken down. Sometimes that means that the guys who finally take care of it get bloody noses and ripped jeans. But there's right and wrong and somebody has to do it. My only disappointment is that it took so long. Because when a bully isn't stopped, he's emboldened.
-
The bolded is really key. The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this. He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue.
Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.
Instead, he pushed the issue further. If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.
MU did the right thing...period.
Regarding the bolded/underlined part, I have no doubt that McAdam's prior behavior was confronted. I am however curious as to the nature of that feedback and how it'll hold up in the legal system.
From Marquette's own report. Page 2:
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
Second, despite multiple prior conflicts with professors, administrators, and students over his extramural and campus communications, Dr. McAdams has never been formally reprimanded, or even warned that his behavior was approaching a boundary that could lead to dismissal.
-
How so?
This can't be the first time that a professor has publicly criticized a TA, or any student for that matter. Was McAdams fired simply because he criticized a TA? Or was it because of the public response/follow to his criticism. If McAdams wrote the blog and instead the response was overwhelmingly favorable to the TA, do you honestly think McAdams would have been fired? If McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, would McAdams had been fired?
You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but you can't ignore that "strangers on the Internet" played a major role here.
Don't be obtuse.
Besides the obvious mistake - he didn't lose his job - he wasn't suspended "because of what strangers on the internet said." He was suspended for what he wrote, in combination with his documented history of writing such things in violation of university policy (a fact the WSJ conveniently ignores).
-
Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case. Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.
LOL. So totally wrong, but precious nonetheless.
I've had numerous articles sent to me by friends that didn't go to MU, have no association to MU, but read the articles and asked "what is going on with your alma mater?"
-
LOL. So totally wrong, but precious nonetheless.
I've had numerous articles sent to me by friends that didn't go to MU, have no association to MU, but read the articles and asked "what is going on with your alma mater?"
+1
I had the WSJ op-ed sent to me by three people yesterday asking what is going on, to poking fun at the MU sh!tshow.
-
+1
I had the WSJ op-ed sent to me by three people yesterday asking what is going on, to poking fun at the MU sh!tshow.
But but but no one outside of MU cares or knows about this. ::)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/02/a-university-moved-to-fire-a-professor-after-he-defended-a-students-right-to-debate-gay-marriage-now-hes-suing/
-
Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case. Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.
mark belling has discussed this on both his show here in milwaukee and rush limbaugh's show in new york when he has subbed for him. rush limbaugh has discussed this also. i don't know how many million people listen to those shows combined. more locally, it has been discussed on charlie sykes, jay weber, vicki mckenna's shows. don't know if jeff wagner has had it on his show.
i'm sure people outside the MU community are aware of this
-
Forgetful's comments were absurd. To suggest that only the MU community cares is putting one's head in the sand.
All one has to do is a simple search of the topic on forums alone to see people talking about it. Now, is it the top story on the news or at the water cooler...no, but ridiculous to suggest this is confined to MU's echo chamber.
-
I can imagine the outcome of this case will impact other schools as well, not just MU; which is why it has become a topic in the national media.
-
Crean sucks
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/professor-sues-after-school-threatens-his-job-over-conservative-blog/
-
MU countering with their own friendly media and putting bullying information out there.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/professor-sues-after-school-threatens-his-job-over-conservative-blog/
-
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/professor.sues.catholic.university.for.firing.him.over.blog.post.pointing.out.instructors.pro.gay.rights.stance/85369.htm
-
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7551
-
Don't be obtuse.
Besides the obvious mistake - he didn't lose his job - he wasn't suspended "because of what strangers on the internet said." He was suspended for what he wrote, in combination with his documented history of writing such things in violation of university policy (a fact the WSJ conveniently ignores).
He didn't lose his job? I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired. What a clusterf---.
But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all? Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?
Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help. So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation. So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world? At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?
At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally. He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.
-
NM
-
Eventually, the bully on the playground who repeatedly picks on second graders needs to be taken down. Sometimes that means that the guys who finally take care of it get bloody noses and ripped jeans. But there's right and wrong and somebody has to do it. My only disappointment is that it took so long. Because when a bully isn't stopped, he's emboldened.
What are your thoughts on the teachers who abused their authority and attacked him without regard to established rules and protocols?
McAdams has been a pain in Marquette's side for years but nothing he did was actually illegal or unethical. It may not demonstrate the best judgment or taste but that is a matter of opinion and not fact.
In responding to his naming Abbate on his blog the Marquette administrators violated the rules in the how, what, why, and when of meting out discipline against McAdams. In this there is no debate.
But here is the bottom line: Marquette is being cast in a devastatingly bad light because of this. Frankly, this could have been managed far more effectively. McAdams did what he did. But Marquette made this the tragedy it has become.
-
He didn't lose his job? I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired. What a clusterf---.
But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all? Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?
Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help. So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation. So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world? At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?
At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally. He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.
These are very valid points, but I think there is some added responsibility to having that kind of audience (and he knows he had it) and what you do with it.
I'm not going to say having that audience did not have a play here, I just don't think McAdams is being punished because of the actions of others.
-
He didn't lose his job? I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired. What a clusterf---.
But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all? Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?
Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help. So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation. So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world? At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?
At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally. He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.
Let's boil it down to what McAdams did and then go from there. He publicized a grad student's actions (doesn't matter if only his dog read his blog or POTUS himself) which was contrary to MU policy and he had a documented history of doing so. He also interjected himself into a situation in which he had no standing or right to be involved. If anyone had that history be it McAdams or Putin, or Ariana Huffington or Alan Dershowitz they should face the same repercussions.
So to your point that if he didn't have a large following he wouldn't be punished, I'd flip that on his head, should MU not punish him for something he did simply because he has a "large" following??
What makes this so damn tough, and why we are fighting about it is the motivations of all the players involved. I have no doubt that some of McAdams motivations were to help the undergrad student, but I'm equally certain that he was motivated to gin up as much controversy as possible and throw as much mud on MU as possible. I think Snow and South were probably motivated by wanting to protect a Marquette student but were also equally (if not more) motivated by the opportunity to get rid of McAdams and because they despise his politics. I'm sure Lovell is motivated by wanting to back the university but he's also motivated to make an example out of McAdams to appease the faculty.
Fair numbers of people did the right things for wrong reasons and wrong things for right reasons, how do you deal with that in the context of such vitriol from all sides?
This was going to be ugly no matter what, now the question is has MU taken the path with the fewest downside risks? Too early to tell IMHO
-
It's interesting to see some use Grad Student and not teacher \ instructor, which she also was. Willful omission? 8-)
-
ND sucks.