MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: warriorchick on May 04, 2017, 05:15:48 PM
-
Breaking news:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2017/05/04/judge-backs-marquette-universitys-suspension-professor-john-mcadams-over-blog-post/101292186/
-
Time to dig into that other McAdams thread and see who thought this was going to bring ruin to Marquette.
-
As the judge should have.
-
Doesn't matter. Marquette doesn't stand a chance before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
-
I think I'll take the time and read the full 33 page ruling tonight.
-
As expected.
-
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com
-
I think I'll take the time and read the full 33 page ruling tonight.
The fact that the judge gave deference to Lovell's decision tells you about all you need to know.
-
Yeah, that Lovell was right.
-
The fact that the judge gave deference to Lovell's decision tells you about all you need to know.
That he understands the law?
-
That he understands the law?
Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.
-
Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.
Ha!
-
Imagine that your employer fired you, you sued, and then the judge said I'm just going to defer to your employer's decision. Crazy.
"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."
IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous.
-
"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."
IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous.
Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war. There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.
-
Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war. There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.
Did you even read the ruling?
-
"McAdams expressly agreed as a condition of his employment to abide by disciplinary procedures in faculty statutes, and his contract included a standard for cause, focusing on issues of professional duties and fitness as a university professor, Hansher wrote."
IOW, the lawsuit was frivolous.
I've read many, many legal opinions in my years. This was very well reasoned.
-
Did you even read the ruling?
Yes.
-
I've read many, many legal opinions in my years. This was very well reasoned.
The judge sided with a lower level Ohio state court over the D.C. and 7th Circuits on the issue of deference based on tenuous factual grounds. Not that well reasoned.
-
Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war. There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.
The procedures that Marquette put in place, and agreed to by McAdams, don't agree with your assessment.
-
The procedures that Marquette put in place, and agreed to by McAdams, don't agree with your assessment.
Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette. If they do, I'll leave this board forever.
-
McAdams was on probation for harassment (bullying)...he pushed it and got whacked. This isn't about his academic freedom but about his repeat offending of workplace rights. It is unfortunate as he is a brilliant mind, but confusing the two issues (academic and workplace rights) will not win him this case.
-
The judge sided with a lower level Ohio state court over the D.C. and 7th Circuits on the issue of deference based on tenuous factual grounds. Not that well reasoned.
The 'level' of a particular court case isn't relevant in the least. What matters is the direct applicability of the cited case to the facts of the disputed matter. Using your logic taken to the extreme, Brown v. Board of Education could govern. Of course that's foolish.
-
Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette. If they do, I'll leave this board forever.
I have no idea who on the Supreme Court will rule in what manner. And I don't care if you leave or not.
This judge's ruling was well reasoned and reaffirms why Marquette acted in the manner it did.
-
Name four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that you think will agree with Marquette. If they do, I'll leave this board forever.
Why do you insist that judges look at everything through a political lens?
-
Why do you insist that judges look at everything through a political lens?
Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.
-
Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.
It has nothing to do with that. It is a workplace and contract issue.
-
I have no idea who on the Supreme Court will rule in what manner. And I don't care if you leave or not.
This judge's ruling was well reasoned and reaffirms why Marquette acted in the manner it did.
I'm trying to point out to you that this isn't the end of the case and MU will almost surely lose in the end.
-
I'm trying to point out to you that this isn't the end of the case and MU will almost surely lose in the end.
It may. But I doubt it.
-
It has nothing to do with that. It is a workplace and contract issue.
It's a contractual dispute premised on the employers promise to respect academic freedom and free speech. The justices' views on First Amendment issues will be highly relevant to how they see this case.
-
It may. But I doubt it.
Gableman, Kelly, and R. Bradley are all locks for McAdams. MU will have to climb a steep hill to pull Roggansack and Ziegler.
-
It's a contractual dispute premised on the employers promise to respect academic freedom and free speech. The justices' views on First Amendment issues will be highly relevant to how they see this case.
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Academic freedom isn't a first amendment issue. It is an issue of contract. McAdams best defense is to argue that Marquette did not interpret the current norms of academic freedom correctly within his employment agreement.
-
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Academic freedom isn't a first amendment issue. It is an issue of contract. McAdams best defense is to argue that Marquette did not interpret the current norms of academic freedom correctly within his employment agreement.
If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you. And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.
-
One of the things that I thought was interesting was the judge's deference to the Marquette review and discipline process as codified in the faculty contract. The only 'oops' he came up with was the quickly corrected early January letter written by Holz.
As I had indicated throughout the process, I was confident that MU was being very well advised by excellent outside counsel from very early on.
-
If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you.
It may. It may not. They may not deem it relevant at all considering the contract in place.
And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.
And their defense is easy. Look at the rules McAdams agreed to when he signed his contract, and look how Marquette performed against those rules.
One of the things that I thought was interesting was the judge's deference to the Marquette review and discipline process as codified in the faculty contract. The only 'oops' he came up with was the quickly corrected early January letter written by Holz.
As I had indicated throughout the process, I was confident that MU was being very well advised by excellent outside counsel from very early on.
Exactly.
-
And their defense is easy. Look at the rules McAdams agreed to when he signed his contract, and look how Marquette performed against those rules.
I never saw a rule that said professors could get punished for naming another instructor on the internet. Or that Lovell could ignore the faculty board's recommendation and just choose to do his own thing.
-
Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.
This isn't a First Amendment case and McAdams isn't making a First Amendment argument. If he were, it would be in federal court.
He's claiming breach of contract, hence ithe case is in state court.
-
This isn't a First Amendment case and McAdams isn't making a First Amendment argument. If he were, it would be in federal court.
He's claiming breach of contract, hence ithe case is in state court.
Thanks for the civ pro lesson.
-
I never saw a rule that said professors could get punished for naming another instructor on the internet. Or that Lovell could ignore the faculty board's recommendation and just choose to do his own thing.
My guess is that you have no idea what the rules say, and that you never read the ruling because the judge goes into detail of how Marquette followed them.
Again, if Marquette broke the rules that both parties agreed to, he is due damages. Otherwise...nope.
-
Hansher isn't overturned very often. (Meaningless aside: he's Herb Kohl's cousin). He's thoughtful, certainly on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but crafted an opinion that will be very easy to confirm by courts of appeal.
-
Hansher isn't overturned very often. (Meaningless aside: he's Herb Kohl's cousin). He's thoughtful, certainly on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but crafted an opinion that will be very easy to confirm by courts of appeal.
It's a decent opinion for a circuit court judge (God knows that many is Milwaukee County would do much worse). But he made a mistake going the deference route. That essentially flips the standard of review on fact questions from clear error to a de novo legal issue. It's just as easy to reverse as it is to affirm.
-
My guess is that you have no idea what the rules say, and that you never read the ruling because the judge goes into detail of how Marquette followed them.
Again, if Marquette broke the rules that both parties agreed to, he is due damages. Otherwise...nope.
Your guess is wrong. There is a difference between the procedural rules of faculty review, which MU largely followed until things got to Lovell, and the substantive rules governing professor behavior.
-
Thanks for the civ pro lesson.
Well apparently you needed one, counselor, if you believe a state supreme court is going to overrule a breach of contract matter on a First Amendent pleading that hasn't even been made.
-
Well apparently you needed one, counselor, if you believe a state supreme court is going to overrule a breach of contract matter on a First Amendent pleading that hasn't even been made.
My point was about how the justices are likely to think about these issues. They're going to look at this, see a university practicing viewpoint discrimination and punishing a professor for third-party speech, and see it as a breach of its promise of academic freedom.
-
Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war. There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.
You need to make an attempt to understand the case before you start making your point.
-
You need to make an attempt to understand the case before you start making your point.
Please educate me, Oh Wise One. What is my simple brain too dumb to understand.
-
If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you. And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.
Where is your law degree from and where did you pass the bar?
Just wondering.
I'm guessing from your tenuous grasp on law, you don't have one, and you never took it.
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny. and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses.
and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny. and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses.
and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?
This discussion is civil and based in facts. You tend to create inflammatory discussions. Just sayin'.
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny. and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses.
and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?
Helpful hint: adopting 4Never's shtick is probably not the most effective way to get your point across in a serious discussion.
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny. and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses.
and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?
Posting sources from such politically charged sites as you did is a good way to lock a thread. But hey the victim thing works for you
-
Rocket, this has been an interesting discussion about the case and the ruling, nothing really more.
Look, I swing different politically from several scoopers who have posted in this thread. I think most folks know where I stand on that spectrum. But it's interesting how some of us can have enlightening discussions without going down the rabbit hole.
Oh, by the way, somehow I missed the McAdams story this morning on Fox & Friends. Oh, they haven't had a segment? Shocked. (PS, I hate ALL fake news.)
-
Where is your law degree from and where did you pass the bar?
Just wondering.
I'm guessing from your tenuous grasp on law, you don't have one, and you never took it.
If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school. Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb. McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.
I never understood this case from the school's perspective. It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
If you don't understand the difference between what is being said here and what you posted, I don't know what to say.
-
If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school. Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb. McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.
I never understood this case from the school's perspective. It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.
It's a workplace issue. Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.
-
If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school. Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb. McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.
I never understood this case from the school's perspective. It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.
The judge must have been in the 95th percentile.
-
If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school. Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb. McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.
I never understood this case from the school's perspective. It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.
Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre. He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief. Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it. Frankly something that should have been done years earlier. I'm not going to pretend to argue law here. But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy. If compensation is due, so be it. Just get the eff off my campus forever.
-
Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre. He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief. Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it. Frankly something that should have been done years earlier. I'm not going to pretend to argue law here. But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy. If compensation is due, so be it. Just get the eff off my campus forever.
Exactly. That's why it is hardly a PR disaster regardless.
-
i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons. what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN. this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! :(
probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section
ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny. and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses.
and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?
I see you've taken on the victim mentality and "everyone's against me" philosophy of former posters
-
It's a workplace issue. Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.
Lots of cases involve "workplace issues." That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them. But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.
-
Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre. He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief. Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it. Frankly something that should have been done years earlier. I'm not going to pretend to argue law here. But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy. If compensation is due, so be it. Just get the eff off my campus forever.
Yup.
Lots of cases involve "workplace issues." That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them. But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.
Fairly certain that's not the message the administration is sending.
-
Posting sources from such politically charged sites as you did is a good way to lock a thread. But hey the victim thing works for you
CBS is a politically charged site? Wasn't this the subject in January, that he won an award?
http://www.cbs58.com/story/34601334/suspended-marquette-professor-honored-at-cpac
Which once again goes to show why politics shouldn't be allowed here. If McAdams won the case yesterday, would this thread continue to go on? The dividing lines of the same people always on the same sides of the arguments.
-
Where is your law degree from and where did you pass the bar?
Just wondering.
I'm guessing from your tenuous grasp on law, you don't have one, and you never took it.
You wondered wrong. Guerrero has a good grasp on the law. The thing is, there are great lawyers and great judges in this country that often disagree with the law, which is why we have so many 5-4 decisions and overturning of cases. Does that make those on one side lacking grasp of the law, or do they not line up with your viewpoints? The law isn't cut and dry.
-
Lots of cases involve "workplace issues." That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them. But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.
But this isn't what Marquette is doing unless you are trying to be a member of rocket's perpetual victim class.
As I have said all along, there are plenty of professors at Marquette who believe as McAdams does and express those beliefs. The difference being that after being reprimanded for a workplace violation at one time, he decided to commit the same violation again.
If you can point to someone who believes the opposite of McAdams, and committed the same types of violations but was retained, you may have a point. Remember this is the same school that fired Susannah Bartlow after the Shakur mural issue.
Hard to argue this is a political issue.
-
CBS is a politically charged site? Wasn't this the subject in January, that he won an award?
http://www.cbs58.com/story/34601334/suspended-marquette-professor-honored-at-cpac
Which once again goes to show why politics shouldn't be allowed here. If McAdams won the case yesterday, would this thread continue to go on? The dividing lines of the same people always on the same sides of the arguments.
He didn't post from CBS he posted from freerepublic
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=53191.msg889631#msg889631
-
But this isn't what Marquette is doing unless you are trying to be a member of rocket's perpetual victim class.
As I have said all along, there are plenty of professors at Marquette who believe as McAdams does and express those beliefs. The difference being that after being reprimanded for a workplace violation at one time, he decided to commit the same violation again.
If you can point to someone who believes the opposite of McAdams, and committed the same types of violations but was retained, you may have a point. Remember this is the same school that fired Susannah Bartlow after the Shakur mural issue.
Hard to argue this is a political issue.
The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:
https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/
Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow. My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.
-
Some may disagree with this outcome that flatly rejects the victim narrative of The Great Wise One. But it shouldn't be for debate whether the First Amendment is at issue here. The WI Supreme Court can't and shouldn't raise a First Amendment issue sua sponte when the plaintiff didn't bring such a claim and the parties didn't argue it. The politics of the WI Supreme Court may be relevant in certain cases but they're not foolish enough to do McAdams' fighting for him.
-
If they win will they fill his spot with a like minded professor? I won't hold my breath.
-
Honestly... at this point, should any of us still care about this? It's not like this is a precedent-setting case that could be the cornerstone of future action regarding free speech, students' rights, professors' rights, etc. on college campuses, i.e. this was such a strange case to begin with that I can't see how any part of it has any relevance to anyone except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum who are going to grab their pitchforks anytime it seems like someone on the other side (or even the same side) starts making hay.
In other words, is this really a battle that college-educated people should be fighting/supporting? Can't we just leave bullshiite like this to the hippies and rednecks to discuss?
-
It's a workplace issue. Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.
Exactly!
-
The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:
https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/
Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow. My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.
Wow are you selective. You do know that Shapiro spoke with the full support of the university, yes? And as to Bartlow, yes Mike 'fired' her. He fired her within 48 hours after learning of the mural. Whether that firing took the form of a compelled resignation is irrelevant. Moreover, he directed Facility Management to paint over that offensive thing before the sun went down. Guys did it on Sunday afternoon.
-
Wow are you selective. You do know that Shapiro spoke with the full support of the university, yes? And as to Bartlow, yes Mike 'fired' her. He fired her within 48 hours after learning of the mural. Whether that firing took the form of a compelled resignation is irrelevant. Moreover, he directed Facility Management to paint over that offensive thing before the sun went down. Guys did it on Sunday afternoon.
He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one. And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package.
-
Honestly... at this point, should any of us still care about this? It's not like this is a precedent-setting case that could be the cornerstone of future action regarding free speech, students' rights, professors' rights, etc. on college campuses, i.e. this was such a strange case to begin with that I can't see how any part of it has any relevance to anyone except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum who are going to grab their pitchforks anytime it seems like someone on the other side (or even the same side) starts making hay.
In other words, is this really a battle that college-educated people should be fighting/supporting? Can't we just leave bullshiite like this to the hippies and rednecks to discuss?
If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet.
-
He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one.
1. How do you know she went unpunished?
2. It's hardly similar behavior.
-
If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet.
That's not why he was fired. C'mon...at least pretend to be objective here.
-
If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet.
The guy didn't just publish her name, he put a link in his blog to her contact information and her personal website. You cannot tell me that doing that is not an obvious invitation to his readers to harrass her. And for a professor to do that to a student is inexcusable.
-
McAdams was given a chance to save his job. He's too hard headed to do so so he chose to take his firing. Good riddance if you ask me.
-
That's not why he was fired. C'mon...at least pretend to be objective here.
Then what was he fired for? Using her name in his blog? You think McAdams would have been fired for just referencing her name if no one had ever contacted her? That's even more Orwellian.
-
He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one. And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package.
So I'm now putting you in that group of scoopers who never give up but simply continue to argue their point no matter how tortured their position is.
I have no idea if Mike gave her a couple months pay to go away. Do you really think he was going to take the hardscrabble path of 'firing for cause' over an offensive mural? The bottom line is the mural was whitewashed by Sunday night and she was gone by Tuesday when he learned of the whole thing over that same weekend. I'll share with you that I was marginally 'in the loop' in real time. Those are the facts. And they are not in dispute.
I'm done arguing with you Guerrero. Have a great day.
-
The guy didn't just publish her name, he put a link in his blog to her contact information and her personal website. You cannot tell me that doing that is not an obvious invitation to his readers to harrass her. And for a professor to do that to a student is inexcusable.
Let's drop the whole, "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection." She was a big girl, teaching college courses, and openly publishing her ideas to the world on the Internet. If she didn't want to attract attention to her ideas, she didn't need to put up a blog for the world to comment on.
-
So I'm now putting you in that group of scoopers who never give up but simply continue to argue their point no matter how tortured their position is.
I have no idea if Mike gave her a couple months pay to go away. Do you really think he was going to take the hardscrabble path of 'firing for cause' over an offensive mural? The bottom line is the mural was whitewashed by Sunday night and she was gone by Tuesday when he learned of the whole thing over that same weekend. I'll share with you that I was marginally 'in the loop' in real time. Those are the facts. And they are not in dispute.
I'm done arguing with you Guerrero. Have a great day.
That's fine, I'm just pointing out that things aren't irrelevant just because you say so.
-
It was well detailed in the Faculty Hearing Committee report why he was fired.
-
Let's drop the whole, "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection." She was a big girl, teaching college courses, and openly publishing her ideas to the world on the Internet. If she didn't want to attract attention to her ideas, she didn't need to put up a blog for the world to comment on.
OK here you go.
You are going down this rabbit hole again. She was a student. Graduate students teaching courses are still students.
You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts. Not really interested in rehashing that.
-
OK here you go.
You are going down this rabbit hole again. She was a student. Graduate students teaching courses are still students.
You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts. Not really interested in rehashing that.
Word.
-
This has been an interesting thread.
I read the opinion.
I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...
....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.
Many tenets of McAdams claims merited a MSJ blowout. All of the tort theories were not worth raising. The Contract, Review board, process, etc are internal and regularly given broad deference, especially as here it seemed to have lots of fair due process.
I will agree with EG that ....the only path of any real interest/discussion by courts is the free speech point. Even as MUFaculty handbook pointed out ...it wont impinge on constitutional rights (1st Amend), BUT workplace/work related speech may and does have employment consequences. Heck anyone suing/defending an employment case will note it is likely the words/speech of both employee, and employer that is very the source of many an incident or termination. Try ragging on a fellow employee on your facebook page and see how your boss reacts. Speech is free...but not without consequence.
Unburdened, now, by prior employer restraints, McAdams should feel freed and liberated to say/post anything he wishes. An employment suit never provides personal vindication...at most just a few bucks. MU has moved on ...McAdams should, also...but he wont...prolonging the fight is his ongoing fame (speaker's $$, etc). In todays climate of daily bombast, it would be nice if he appreciated that he is yesterday's news, in this area.
-
The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:
https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/
Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow. My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.
Sigh. The "administrator" as you put it, in the Ben Shapiro situation was a STUDENT worker. She was protesting the event as a student which was well within her first amendment rights. Calling her an administrator is like calling the cashier at piggly wiggly "management."
I hadn't actually seen the marquette wire version of the story. The fact that an on campus news source called a student worker a member of the faculty is really poor journalism. Even if she wasn't a student she would have been a member of the staff, not faculty.
-
You have gone well beyond making legal arguments and are just going back to the same old arguments that McAdams made and were rejected by the Marquette faculty, the president and now the courts. Not really interested in rehashing that.
You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so. Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct. Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination. In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.
-
You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so. Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct. Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination. In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.
Then say that. Don't post made up quotes like "Abate was a delicate flower that needed protection" and expect people to take your arguments seriously.
-
I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...
....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.
I think you just did, and, unlike me, no one asked directly. ;)
-
He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one. And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package.
Well, for all we know McAdams also was afforded the opportunity to leave with a severance package.
But he doesn't come off as the type of guy who would miss any opportunity to pick a public fight. He seems more the type to build a cross, nail himself to it and then declare himself a martyr.
-
This has been an interesting thread.
I read the opinion.
I am an attorney ( would never bring up my also high rankings and law review....ungentlemanly, EG....I see they egged you tho), ...
....but I learned all I know by staying at a Holiday Inn last night.
Many tenets of McAdams claims merited a MSJ blowout. All of the tort theories were not worth raising. The Contract, Review board, process, etc are internal and regularly given broad deference, especially as here it seemed to have lots of fair due process.
I will agree with EG that ....the only path of any real interest/discussion by courts is the free speech point. Even as MUFaculty handbook pointed out ...it wont impinge on constitutional rights (1st Amend), BUT workplace/work related speech may and does have employment consequences. Heck anyone suing/defending an employment case will note it is likely the words/speech of both employee, and employer that is very the source of many an incident or termination. Try ragging on a fellow employee on your facebook page and see how your boss reacts. Speech is free...but not without consequence.
Unburdened, now, by prior employer restraints, McAdams should feel freed and liberated to say/post anything he wishes. An employment suit never provides personal vindication...at most just a few bucks. MU has moved on ...McAdams should, also...but he wont...prolonging the fight is his ongoing fame (speaker's $$, etc). In todays climate of daily bombast, it would be nice if he appreciated that he is yesterday's news, in this area.
Well put.
-
nm
-
You realize that is the legal argument, and Marquette made it so. Their defense is that they're justified in terminating McAdams, despite his tenure and contractual promise of free expression, because he violated the university's standards of professional conduct. Therefore, they have to show that linking to a graduate student's blog is so beyond the pale that it warrants termination. In any objective world, that defense, if even cognizable, creates a question of fact for a jury.
From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.
The only question now is whether the appeals court takes the case or passes it on directly to the WI Supreme Court, which is where it's ultimately headed.
And let's be real about all of this. Essenberg and McAdams knew MU would win this round when uber-liberal Hansher got the case, and MU knew they would win. That's just the reality of the situation. Just like when the 9th Circuit takes up the Trump EO's, you know they will overturn them. Just like when a lefty judge in Madison hears a case involving Act 10, for example, you know they will side against Gov Walker. Judges are political and rule as such.
But McAdams also knows that the WI Supreme Ct is very, very, very likely to side with him. It is in MU's interest to have this drag out well into next year, since Mike Gableman will be up for re-election next April and they have a chance to get another liberal on the court to go along with Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, who will be in MU's corner.
-
From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.
So over cocktails or at the water cooler the WI supreme court has pre-judged a case and is speaking to others about it.
If true I would be more disappointed with the system than this case.
-
From what I've heard from VERY reliable sources , a number of the WI Supreme Court justices are very skeptical of the reasoning Hansher uses, especially the thought that a professor could be held responsible for how someone reacts to what he/she writes or says.
The only question now is whether the appeals court takes the case or passes it on directly to the WI Supreme Court, which is where it's ultimately headed.
And let's be real about all of this. Essenberg and McAdams knew MU would win this round when uber-liberal Hansher got the case, and MU knew they would win. That's just the reality of the situation. Just like when the 9th Circuit takes up the Trump EO's, you know they will overturn them. Just like when a lefty judge in Madison hears a case involving Act 10, for example, you know they will side against Gov Walker. Judges are political and rule as such.
But McAdams also knows that the WI Supreme Ct is very, very, very likely to side with him. It is in MU's interest to have this drag out well into next year, since Mike Gableman will be up for re-election next April and they have a chance to get another liberal on the court to go along with Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, who will be in MU's corner.
If justices are letting their opinions be known in advance about cases that may or may not make it to them, they should be removed.
-
If justices are letting their opinions be known in advance about cases that may or may not make it to them, they should be removed.
removed? disbarred.
-
Your choice of words is better.
-
The justices are doing no such thing and Mayfair is just doing his usual crap.
-
Let's see if this gets shifted to Federal Court via EEOC.
-
The justices are doing no such thing and Mayfair is just doing his usual crap.
You're in for a rude awakening.
And if people really don't think judges/justices don't talk about cases, you are extremely naive.
-
You're in for a rude awakening.
No I'm not. I have acknowledged repeatedly that McAdams could win.
I just know you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Let's see if this gets shifted to Federal Court via EEOC.
This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law
-
This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law
And I think it would a little tough for him to prove some sort of protected class discrimination. The only thing he has going for him in that regard is age, and it's not like he is the only old white guy that works for the university. On top of that, I don't believe he has raised that claim before, and wouldn't it be a little late in the game to do that now?
-
And I think it would a little tough for him to prove some sort of protected class discrimination. The only thing he has going for him in that regard is age, and it's not like he is the only old white guy that works for the university. On top of that, I don't believe he has raised that claim before, and wouldn't it be a little late in the game to do that now?
An EEOC complaint generally needs to be filed to the EEOC within 180 days, and can be extended to 300 days under certain circumstances. If the EEOC decides not to act on a complaint, they typically issue a right to sue notice, which means the EEOC sees no basis for the complaint, but the employee can sue anyway. I'm not sure if someone has the right to sue if they fail to file with the EEOC.
-
This isn't an EEOC matter. It's contract law
I could be wrong, and this situation is confusing, but I thought EEOC complaints were lodged against him? Obviously, this specific case is McAdam's so sorry to muddle the thread.
-
As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract. The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?
-
As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract. The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?
I was wondering the same thing. I see very little reason for why the S Ct would even here this case, but do not know the ins and outs of the WI legal system.
-
As a non WI lawyer, I am surprised by the certainty with which some posters are positing that the WI S Ct will take the case. In most jurisdictions, there is a right to a first level of appeal for most cases, including those for breach of contract. The next level requires acceptance by the S Ct of a Petition. Those Petitiins are very rarely granted, especially in civil cases, and in most instances involve a division among circuits, a state constitutional issue, or an interpretation of a statute. Is WI different in this regard?
The rule in Wisconsin is similar to that you describe. But you only need three votes to accept a petition. McAdams certainly has that in Gabbleman, Kelly, and R. Bradley.
-
Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.
-
Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.
Bwahha ha ha ha
-
Interesting that George Will decided to pick up this story in the Washington Post while McAdams' petition is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/academic-freedom-goes-on-trial/2017/12/29/81cb9268-ebf6-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.b3dfcc4c0061.
That picture with the article will do wonders for recruiting.
-
That picture with the article will do wonders for recruiting.
Because most recruits read the Washington Post?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPxRuQQtVbQz35S/giphy.gif)
-
George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst. I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand. This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda. Mark me down as disappointed.
-
George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst. I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand. This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda. Mark me down as disappointed.
As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will.
-
Because most recruits read the Washington Post?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPxRuQQtVbQz35S/giphy.gif)
Sheesh. I guess I’ll use teal next time.
-
George Will is typically a well reasoned, serious analyst. I don't always agree with him but recognize his serious examination of the issues at hand. This particular editorial piece is sloppy to a level usually reserved for 'bomb throwers' who have nothing to contribute except to reinforce some predetermined agenda. Mark me down as disappointed.
Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.
-
Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.
I know, hey? Seriously, I accuse some on the left as being nothing but empty bomb throwing boobs. That's all Will did from the right here. Not a word of serious examination. Nothing but talking points.
-
As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will.
Not quite sure how to respond to this other than to say that I saw the McAdams situation as a completely apolitical issue. Somehow in our culture political opinion or 'taking sides' seems to supercede everything such as the 'rule of law' or written 'employee codes of conduct'. I reject the notion that truth or employment rules or whatever are ever at the whim of a political majority or those that simply shout the loudest.
Many years ago I had great personal regard for John and considered him a mentor. Saddened that's no longer true.
-
On another note, can this please put a nail in the coffin of the tired refrain that liberal judges are "activist" while conservative judges "call balls and strikes"? Here we have a conservative firebrand academic filing an appeal from a lower court contract claim decision on the basis of:
Because there is almost no Wisconsin case law concerning academic freedom that could have guided the circuit court, McAdams is asking the state supreme court to bypass the appeals court and perform its function as the state’s “law-developing court.” He is also asking the court to be cognizant of the cultural context: Nationwide, colleges and universities “are under pressure” — all of it from within the institutions — “to enact or implement speech codes or otherwise restrict speech in various ways.”
I don't have a problem with McAdams making this argument, and I don't necessarily have a problem with a well-reasoned opinion that comes down on either side. But it highlights that courts of last resort grant petitions for review when there are open questions of law. If McAdams doesn't think taking this case and deciding for him is activist, then I struggle to come up with a useful definition of what "activist" actually is.
Edit to include the last part of Will's article on this:
The wreckage she left in her wake illustrates how rights are imperiled when judicial deference becomes dereliction of judicial duty... Wisconsin’s Supreme Court must lay down the law that can stop some of the rot this case illustrates.
To be fair, George Will once wrote an article titled "Judicial activism isn't a bad thing" so he's not necessarily offender #1 on this. But at the point where conservative academics are requesting relief by way of the court's function as "law developing" considering "cultural context" and conservative political commentators are saying judicial activism is a good thing, I think its time we just retire the term altogether.
-
As a lifelong Democrat, mark me down as perpetually disappointed with George Will.
George Will hasn't been reasonable in 20 years.
He should stick to baseball.
-
I know, hey? Seriously, I accuse some on the left as being nothing but empty bomb throwing boobs. That's all Will did from the right here. Not a word of serious examination. Nothing but talking points.
Probably needed to bang out one last article before leaving for a the holidays and took the easiest way out.
-
Sheesh. I guess I’ll use teal next time.
You shouldn't need to use teal, but unfortunately, there are posters on Scoop who say stuff like that and actually mean it.
-
On another note, can this please put a nail in the coffin of the tired refrain that liberal judges are "activist" while conservative judges "call balls and strikes?"
Not quite sure how an article from a member of the media could establish this, but okay.
-
Complete with the mocking of her dissertation topic.
Yeah, it was such a serious topic.
-
Yeah, it was such a serious topic.
I'm sensing sarcasm. Why is animal rights a non-serious topic?
-
The rule in Wisconsin is similar to that you describe. But you only need three votes to accept a petition. McAdams certainly has that in Gabbleman, Kelly, and R. Bradley.
A few updates on what is going on now....
---the court is now reading petitions for review for an Appeals Court bypass, which requires four votes to take the case
--one of the conservative justices is leaning towards recusal.
-
George will’s attempt at a straight ahead, conservative approach to this complex argument was akin to one of those exercises of starting a rumor and passing it on down to 20 people and then taking note of how it finished at the end. Mr. will was at the tail end and his interpretation of the chain of events was missing quite a bit. Mccadams was probably shaking his head thinking, with friends like these, who needs
If the circumstances and the dialogue of this issue get distorted any further, it’s interpretations will fall solely on the political side of the one who last holds the pen. I’m on mccadams side here only from the standpoint that he’s shining a light on an issue that’s been brewing within the academic circles for years. Up until now, not many have pushed back. Dr. John may not have followed,protocol here, but the fact remains that the student who started the fire was rebuked because, according to abate, he was going to make some in the class feel “un-safe”. There are ways to hold conversations about “touchy” subjects and this is where a graduate student should grow a pair and earn their wings. Maybe she forgot her Manuel on how to react to someone who pushes back on what she felt was undebatable. I don’t know.
Abate had a chance to perform some blatant teaching here, the heart and sole of academia-to encourage debate and to encourage thinking on the run. Abate Shut it down because she had all the answers and the “wet behind the ears” student was wrong
George will made himself more irrelevant once again. Mr. “big words” and I am smarter than all of you swung and missed...again
-
On another note, can this please put a nail in the coffin of the tired refrain that liberal judges are "activist" while conservative judges "call balls and strikes"?
Buddy, that nail was hammered decades ago. In fairness to conservatives, I don't think they even try arguing that hokum anymore.
-
If the circumstances and the dialogue of this issue get distorted any further, it’s interpretations will fall solely on the political side of the one who last holds the pen. I’m on mccadams side here only from the standpoint that he’s shining a light on an issue that’s been brewing within the academic circles for years. Up until now, not many have pushed back. Dr. John may not have followed,protocol here, but the fact remains that the student who started the fire was rebuked because, according to abate, he was going to make some in the class feel “un-safe”. There are ways to hold conversations about “touchy” subjects and this is where a graduate student should grow a pair and earn their wings. Maybe she forgot her Manuel on how to react to someone who pushes back on what she felt was undebatable. I don’t know.
Abate had a chance to perform some blatant teaching here, the heart and sole of academia-to encourage debate and to encourage thinking on the run. Abate Shut it down because she had all the answers and the “wet behind the ears” student was wrong
She didn't handle it correctly, but her initial dismissal of the topic was that it wasn't relevant to what was being discussed.
But regardless, it is a load of bullsh*t that this has been brewing in higher education for years. A few examples have been drummed up by conservative media to make it look that way. The fact is that there are thousands of ethics and philosophy courses taught every day in a thoughtful and balanced manner and the vast majority of faculty members and administrators expect balance to occur.
-
George will’s attempt at a straight ahead, conservative approach to this complex argument was akin to one of those exercises of starting a rumor and passing it on down to 20 people and then taking note of how it finished at the end. Mr. will was at the tail end and his interpretation of the chain of events was missing quite a bit. Mccadams was probably shaking his head thinking, with friends like these, who needs
If the circumstances and the dialogue of this issue get distorted any further, it’s interpretations will fall solely on the political side of the one who last holds the pen. I’m on mccadams side here only from the standpoint that he’s shining a light on an issue that’s been brewing within the academic circles for years. Up until now, not many have pushed back. Dr. John may not have followed,protocol here, but the fact remains that the student who started the fire was rebuked because, according to abate, he was going to make some in the class feel “un-safe”. There are ways to hold conversations about “touchy” subjects and this is where a graduate student should grow a pair and earn their wings. Maybe she forgot her Manuel on how to react to someone who pushes back on what she felt was undebatable. I don’t know.
Abate had a chance to perform some blatant teaching here, the heart and sole of academia-to encourage debate and to encourage thinking on the run. Abate Shut it down because she had all the answers and the “wet behind the ears” student was wrong
George will made himself more irrelevant once again. Mr. “big words” and I am smarter than all of you swung and missed...again
What happened to the student that started all this? Did he graduate/transfer/drop out/kicked out? Not much has been said about him. Looks like Abbate came out the winner in all this. Granted an expedited "transfer" with no apology to the student with a paying gig at Colorado. Meanwhile McAdams is out of a job because the President of MU said hit the road Jack, unless you admit to wrong doing and say your sorry.
-
What happened to the student that started all this? Did he graduate/transfer/drop out/kicked out? Not much has been said about him. Looks like Abbate came out the winner in all this. Granted an expedited "transfer" with no apology to the student with a paying gig at Colorado. Meanwhile McAdams is out of a job because the President of MU said hit the road Jack, unless you admit to wrong doing and say your sorry.
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
If you'd posted this 24 hours later, you'd be out to a huge early lead for Most Inane Post of the Year.
-
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
If you'd posted this 24 hours later, you'd be out to a huge early lead for Most Inane Post of the Year.
So what. Jane Fonda still hasn’t lived down her stupidity and for good reason. Ya make your bed...
-
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
If you'd posted this 24 hours later, you'd be out to a huge early lead for Most Inane Post of the Year.
And because she had to transfer, her progress towards her PhD was set back at least two years.
-
So what. Jane Fonda still hasn’t lived down her stupidity and for good reason. Ya make your bed...
If you were forced to move for every stupid thing you wrote on Scoop, you'd be living out of a suitcase.
Happy New Year.
-
What happened to the student that started all this? Did he graduate/transfer/drop out/kicked out? Not much has been said about him. Looks like Abbate came out the winner in all this. Granted an expedited "transfer" with no apology to the student with a paying gig at Colorado. Meanwhile McAdams is out of a job because the President of MU said hit the road Jack, unless you admit to wrong doing and say your sorry.
I could find out. I know one of his buddies
-
So what. Jane Fonda still hasn’t lived down her stupidity and for good reason. Ya make your bed...
She made one rookie mistake as a TA. If this had happened to you during Dental school, would you have wanted people to have this kind of attitude about it?
-
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
If you'd posted this 24 hours later, you'd be out to a huge early lead for Most Inane Post of the Year.
He's out to a huge lead for the Most Inane Post of 2017. Better late than never I guess...
-
So what. Jane Fonda still hasn’t lived down her stupidity and for good reason. Ya make your bed...
JANE FONDA!!!!
Holy sh*t, could you come up with a reference from say the last 50 years???
-
She made one rookie mistake as a TA. If this had happened to you during Dental school, would you have wanted people to have this kind of attitude about it?
Nope
-
Nope
Time to follow the golden rule eh?
-
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
If you'd posted this 24 hours later, you'd be out to a huge early lead for Most Inane Post of the Year.
Oh, and was the student she silenced was treated by the Philosophy department with respect?
-
Oh, and the student she silenced was treated by the Philosophy department with respect?
Was he? I have no idea.
Regardless, my understanding is that he was never publicly identified by a faculty member on a blog, wasn't harassed out of school, and didn't have national articles written identifying him and ridiculing his field of study. Perhaps he graduated, but if he didn't, it wasn't due to this incident.
The idea that you somehow think that he was treated worse than Abbate is simply astounding.
-
What would be reasonable here is:
McAdams is paid millions and Abbate is arrested.
-
Oh, and was the student she silenced was treated by the Philosophy department with respect?
1. I have no idea. Neither do you.
2. Relevance?
3. This is a remarkably weak defense of your remarkably dumb post.
-
What would be reasonable here is:
McAdams is paid millions and Abbate is arrested.
(https://static3.fjcdn.com/comments/Blank+_9178b5d8508a2a74fcfbfe464fa4089a.jpg)
-
(https://static3.fjcdn.com/comments/Blank+_9178b5d8508a2a74fcfbfe464fa4089a.jpg)
Meh. He's consistent and predictable. He wants lots of people who he disagrees with arrested.
-
1. I have no idea. Neither do you.
2. Relevance?
3. This is a remarkably weak defense of your remarkably dumb post.
I do-MU harassed him, checked and monitored all his emails and made it very difficult to graduate. In other words MU did their own form of ...nice education ya got there, be a shame if anything...and I absolutely cannot divulge my sources, but I sure MU would be happy to corroborate. His life was made miserable
-
I do-MU harassed him, checked and monitored all his emails and made it very difficult to graduate. In other words MU did their own form of ...nice education ya got there, be a shame if anything...and I absolutely cannot divulge my sources, but I sure MU would be happy to corroborate. His life was made miserable
Please explain how they made it difficult for him to graduate. I have a suspicion your sources are wrong.
-
Yeah I have heard nothing of the sort. And I certainly don't trust rocket as an unbiased source.
-
Not quite sure how an article from a member of the media could establish this, but okay.
Not so much established by the article itself, but established by McAdam's petition for review and requested relief (provided the article accurately captures the substance of the petition).
-
I do-MU harassed him, checked and monitored all his emails and made it very difficult to graduate. In other words MU did their own form of ...nice education ya got there, be a shame if anything...and I absolutely cannot divulge my sources, but I sure MU would be happy to corroborate. His life was made miserable
If this were indeed true, don't you think McAdams would have mentioned it in at least one of the many diatribes he has posted about Marquette's actions regarding this incident?
-
Yes, she was forced to leave school, received threats and harassment, and continues to be mocked in the national press (and elsewhere ... like Scoop) more than three years after the fact.
Definitely came out a winner.
Did Marquette force her to leave school? I thought she voluntarily left and Marquette facilitated her move to U of Colorado. The only person who received walking papers over this incident was McAdams, correct? Or do I have the facts wrong?
-
Did Marquette force her to leave school? I thought she voluntarily left and Marquette facilitated her move to U of Colorado. The only person who received walking papers over this incident was McAdams, correct? Or do I have the facts wrong?
She was forced to leave as a result of the threats, harassment and public ridicule brought on by a misleading blog post from a faculty member.
-
I do-MU harassed him, checked and monitored all his emails and made it very difficult to graduate. In other words MU did their own form of ...nice education ya got there, be a shame if anything...and I absolutely cannot divulge my sources, but I sure MU would be happy to corroborate. His life was made miserable
The student did an anonymous interview with the Marquette Tribune in 2016. Nowhere does he claim anything of the sort.
Perhaps he doesn't have your sources' knowledge of his situation?
https://marquettewire.org/3949078/tribune/tribune-news/students-at-heart-of-mcadams-controversy-share-their-sides-of-the-story/
-
The student did an anonymous interview with the Marquette Tribune in 2016. Nowhere does he claim anything of the sort.
Perhaps he doesn't have your sources' knowledge of his situation?
https://marquettewire.org/3949078/tribune/tribune-news/students-at-heart-of-mcadams-controversy-share-their-sides-of-the-story/
Well I had forgotten the recorded meeting with Holz and South. That is going to be intimidating for an undergraduate student regardless of the circumstances, and recording the meeting without disclosing it? Amateur hour stuff...
"After the post gained national attention, the student had a meeting about the incident with College of Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz and South. The student said it was later found out that South recorded the conversation without getting consent to do so. Cameron Sholty, communications director for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which McAdams’ lawyers work for, also said the recording happened.
Parts of the recording’s transcript are inaudible due to the recorder being muffled while it was hidden under South’s clothes."
-
Well I had forgotten the recorded meeting with Holz and South. That is going to be intimidating for an undergraduate student regardless of the circumstances, and recording the meeting without disclosing it? Amateur hour stuff...
"After the post gained national attention, the student had a meeting about the incident with College of Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz and South. The student said it was later found out that South recorded the conversation without getting consent to do so. Cameron Sholty, communications director for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which McAdams’ lawyers work for, also said the recording happened.
Parts of the recording’s transcript are inaudible due to the recorder being muffled while it was hidden under South’s clothes."
If the student was outraged at the secret recording, that takes stones, especially since he had done the same thing to Abbate.
-
Well I had forgotten the recorded meeting with Holz and South. That is going to be intimidating for an undergraduate student regardless of the circumstances, and recording the meeting without disclosing it? Amateur hour stuff...
"After the post gained national attention, the student had a meeting about the incident with College of Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz and South. The student said it was later found out that South recorded the conversation without getting consent to do so. Cameron Sholty, communications director for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which McAdams’ lawyers work for, also said the recording happened.
Parts of the recording’s transcript are inaudible due to the recorder being muffled while it was hidden under South’s clothes."
It's obvious everyone behaved poorly here (some more so than others).
That said, the student by his own account "never felt unsafe" and didn't know about the recording until well after the fact, which makes it unlikely he was intimidated by the recording. (And why would he be intimidated by the recording, but not the meeting itself?)
But still, the main point is, when given the chance two years after the fact to anonymously tell how he'd been done wrong by Marquette - as rocket claims he was - the kid said nothing of the sort.
-
If the student was outraged at the secret recording, that takes stones, especially since he had done the same thing to Abbate.
There is zero reason why an administrator should make a secret recording of a meeting with a student unless directed to do so in the case of a criminal investigation.
It's obvious everyone behaved poorly here (some more so than others).
That said, the student by his own account "never felt unsafe" and didn't know about the recording until well after the fact, which makes it unlikely he was intimidated by the recording. (And why would he be intimidated by the recording, but not the meeting itself?)
But still, the main point is, when given the chance two years after the fact to anonymously tell how he'd been done wrong by Marquette - as rocket claims he was - the kid said nothing of the sort.
I agree on all counts.
-
There is zero reason why an administrator should make a secret recording of a meeting with a student unless directed to do so in the case of a criminal investigation.
I never said the recording was appropriate. I said that it took balls for the student to be upset by it (if that was indeed the case).
-
There is zero reason why an administrator should make a secret recording of a meeting with a student unless directed to do so in the case of a criminal investigation.
That isn't answering the point that Chick made.
-
I never said the recording was appropriate. I said that it took balls for the student to be upset by it (if that was indeed the case).
He should be upset because it was inappropriate regardless of his prior actions.
Students make mistakes. Administrators should know better.
-
He should be upset because it was inappropriate regardless of his prior actions.
Students make mistakes. Administrators should know better.
Any attorney would have recommended the administrator record the conversation with the student, and since it is not required for both parties to consent in Wisconsin, many of the attorneys would have advised them to not alert the student of the recording.
If the individual knows they are being recorded they are more likely to lie about details that are hearsay.
-
I never said the recording was appropriate. I said that it took balls for the student to be upset by it (if that was indeed the case).
Kinda usin’ “balls” in a sexist, stereotypical manner here, ai na?
-
Kinda usin’ “balls” in a sexist, stereotypical manner here, ai na?
Tit for tat, a'aiaaanaaa?
-
Any attorney would have recommended the administrator record the conversation with the student, and since it is not required for both parties to consent in Wisconsin, many of the attorneys would have advised them to not alert the student of the recording.
If the individual knows they are being recorded they are more likely to lie about details that are hearsay.
Not a legal matter. And unless they do this as a matter of course, it opens them up to additional liability.
Seriously stupid thing to do.
-
She was forced to leave as a result of the threats, harassment and public ridicule brought on by a misleading blog post from a faculty member.
Maybe she DECIDED to leave for those reasons, but she wasn't "forced". There are cases of people standing up to much more threatening bullies than John McAdams.
-
Maybe she DECIDED to leave for those reasons, but she wasn't "forced". There are cases of people standing up to much more threatening bullies than John McAdams.
She very well have felt forced to leave for fear of her life or career. The word is accurately used.
-
She very well have felt forced to leave for fear of her life or career. The word is accurately used.
Disagree. I may decide to move because I fear violence in my neighborhood of decide to quit the football team because I fear CTE. Legitimate fears, to be sure, but my decision, not one forced on me.
-
Disagree. I may decide to move because I fear violence in my neighborhood of decide to quit the football team because I fear CTE. Legitimate fears, to be sure, but my decision, not one forced on me.
Holy pedantry, Batman!
By your logic, armed robbery victims choose to give up their belongings.
-
Holy pedantry, Batman!
By your logic, armed robbery victims choose to give up their belongings.
You're just dead wrong. Nobody forced Ms Abbate out. She decided (for reasons likely valid) to leave. Fact.
-
You're just dead wrong. Nobody forced Ms Abbate out. She decided (for reasons likely valid) to leave. Fact.
Nobody forced the bank teller to hand over the money. He decided (for reasons likely valid) to give it up. Fact.
I'm going to suggest the Lenny Defense to some of my friends who practice criminal law.
-
Nobody forced the bank teller to hand over the money. He decided (for reasons likely valid) to give it up. Fact.
I'm going to suggest the Lenny Defense to some of my friends who practice criminal law.
Plenty of people don't leave town because someone threatens them in an email. Equating it to armed robbery is foolish. I'll call it the Pakuni Principle and all of my friends who enjoy a good laugh at foolish will have a yuk.
-
Plenty of people don't leave town because someone threatens them in an email. Equating it to armed robbery is foolish. I'll call it the Pakuni Principle and all of my friends who enjoy a good laugh at foolish will have a yuk.
Just applying your logic, Lenny.
And we agree on its foolishness.
-
If the student was outraged at the secret recording, that takes stones, especially since he had done the same thing to Abbate.
I have been told this issue is, to a great extent, about power.
If Abbate is immune from criticism due to her "powerless" status vis a vis McAdams, how can you possibly compare a powerless student secretly taping his powerful, unreasonable teacher with powerful deans and/or heads of departments secretly taping a powerless undergrad?
-
Just applying your logic, Lenny.
And we agree on its foolishness.
Misrepresenting it, actually. But you knew that.
-
I have been told this issue is, to a great extent, about power.
If Abbate is immune from criticism due to her "powerless" status vis a vis McAdams, how can you possibly compare a powerless student secretly taping his powerful, unreasonable teacher with powerful deans and/or heads of departments secretly taping a powerless undergrad?
This is such a blatant misstatement of reality. I mean, at what point exactly did you decide to become Chico's?
Nobody on any side of this debate has ever suggested Abbate was immune from criticism. To the contrary, if there's one thing everyone agrees upon, it's that she handled the situation poorly.
But this isn't about how she handled it. Or about secret recordings. Or academic freedom. Or campus politics. Or any of the other noise you and others are making to cloud the real issue here.
This is about a professor using his considerable platform to subject a student to public ridicule (and worse ... though I believe worse was not his intent), after he'd already been warned against such behavior by the administration after he'd done so in the past.
It's also about an arrogant and stubborn man who'd rather drag everyone down into the muck with him rather than simply admitting he was wrong, apologizing for it and moving on.
-
But this isn't about how she handled it. Or about secret recordings. Or academic freedom. Or campus politics. Or any of the other noise you and others are making to cloud the real issue here.
This is about a professor using his considerable platform to subject a student to public ridicule (and worse ... though I believe worse was not his intent), after he'd already been warned against such behavior by the administration after he'd done so in the past.
It's also about an arrogant and stubborn man who'd rather drag everyone down into the muck with him rather than simply admitting he was wrong, apologizing for it and moving on.
You realize that this is just a selective recitation of the "facts" that happen to support the school's theory of the case, not some objective concrete reality. McAdams can tell an equally factual and plausible story:
This is a case about an undergrad student who was told that his views were not allowed in a college philosophy class by the grad student teaching the class; how the university ignored the undergrad's complaints until a prominent conservative professor blogged about it; how the university investigated and reprimanded the conservative professor rather than the grad instructor; how the university held the conservative professor responsible for things anonymous third parties did to the grad instructor on the internet; and how the university president defied the recommendation of the faculty commission for a suspension and instead gave the conservative professor an ultimatum that he would be fired unless he provided a forced confession to the president's specifications.
You can try to dismiss the bad aspects of the case for MU as "noise," but that doesn't make their position any more convincing.
-
You realize that this is just a selective recitation of the "facts" that happen to support the school's theory of the case, not some objective concrete reality. McAdams can tell an equally factual and plausible story:
This is a case about an undergrad student who was told that his views were not allowed in a college philosophy class by the grad student teaching the class; how the university ignored the undergrad's complaints until a prominent conservative professor blogged about it; how the university investigated and reprimanded the conservative professor rather than the grad instructor; how the university held the conservative professor responsible for things anonymous third parties did to the grad instructor on the internet; and how the university president defied the recommendation of the faculty commission for a suspension and instead gave the conservative professor an ultimatum that he would be fired unless he provided a forced confession to the president's specifications.
You can try to dismiss the bad aspects of the case for MU as "noise," but that doesn't make their position any more convincing.
Perhaps to you but not to the Courts.
-
Perhaps to you but not to the Courts.
We'll see I suppose, but I wouldn't take an opinion of a left-leaning Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge as a strong indication of how the staunchly conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court will view the case.
-
We'll see I suppose, but I wouldn't take an opinion of a left-leaning Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge as a strong indication of how the staunchly conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court will view the case.
Everything through the lense of politics, never the law.
-
Everything through the lense of politics, never the law.
Please explain to me the "law" you've used to reach your conclusions on this case.
Every case is the application of laws, often ambiguous ones, to a particular fact pattern. There really isn't much applicable case or statutory law in Wisconsin relevant to this case, so it's a basic contract case that depends on whether you view McAdams behavior as a contract violation or not, which in turn is influenced by your views on academic freedom issues, which happen to be highly politically charged at the moment.
-
You realize that this is just a selective recitation of the "facts" that happen to support the school's theory of the case, not some objective concrete reality. McAdams can tell an equally factual and plausible story:
This is a case about an undergrad student who was told that his views were not allowed in a college philosophy class by the grad student teaching the class; how the university ignored the undergrad's complaints until a prominent conservative professor blogged about it; how the university investigated and reprimanded the conservative professor rather than the grad instructor; how the university held the conservative professor responsible for things anonymous third parties did to the grad instructor on the internet; and how the university president defied the recommendation of the faculty commission for a suspension and instead gave the conservative professor an ultimatum that he would be fired unless he provided a forced confession to the president's specifications.
You can try to dismiss the bad aspects of the case for MU as "noise," but that doesn't make their position any more convincing.
Bingo. Two sided coin, Pakuni only acknowledges one.It's only "about" what he wishes/wants it to be "about". Arrogance.
-
Please explain to me the "law" you've used to reach your conclusions on this case.
Every case is the application of laws, often ambiguous ones, to a particular fact pattern. There really isn't much applicable case or statutory law in Wisconsin relevant to this case, so it's a basic contract case that depends on whether you view McAdams behavior as a contract violation or not, which in turn is influenced by your views on academic freedom issues, which happen to be highly politically charged at the moment.
Nailed it.
-
You realize that this is just a selective recitation of the "facts" that happen to support the school's theory of the case, not some objective concrete reality. McAdams can tell an equally factual and plausible story:
Not sure if you're a lawyer or just play one on Scoop, but from a legal standpoint your arguments below are a disaster.
This is a case about an undergrad student who was told that his views were not allowed in a college philosophy class by the grad student teaching the class;
Neither the undergrad student nor the grad student are parties to this case. What they did or didn't do is irrelevant.
how the university ignored the undergrad's complaints until a prominent conservative professor blogged about it;
Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. In fact, what little we do know contradicts this statement.
But regardless, the undergrad is not a party to this case, so whether the university ignored his complaint is irrelevant.
how the university investigated and reprimanded the conservative professor rather than the grad instructor
Again, likely assumes facts not in evidence (do you know that Abbate was not investigated or reprimanded?).
how the university held the conservative professor responsible for things anonymous third parties did to the grad instructor on the internet
I actually agree here. And I'm glad you agree that McAdams' behavior led to threats against Abbate.
and how the university president defied the recommendation of the faculty commission for a suspension and instead gave the conservative professor an ultimatum that he would be fired unless he provided a forced confession to the president's specifications.
Defied? Oh, please. The recommendation was just that ... a recommendation. Lovell has no legal, ethical, professional or moral obligation to follow it. If McAdams is trying to build a case around Lovell not following the faculty commission's recommendation, he lost before the ink dried on his complaint.
You can try to dismiss the bad aspects of the case for MU as "noise," but that doesn't make their position any more convincing.
The "bad aspects" of the case for MU as you present them are all either unsupported by the facts, concern people who are not parties to the case or irrelevant to legal issues therein.
-
This is a case about an undergrad student who was told that his views were not allowed in a college philosophy class by the grad student teaching the class;
Not necessarily true. Regardless, there are procedures in place to address these issues that neither the student nor McAdams followed. The student I understand, but McAdams should know better.
how the university ignored the undergrad's complaints until a prominent conservative professor blogged about it;
I don't believe the university was made aware of the complaints until the professor blogged about it. I could be wrong on my timeline. Regardless, even if they did know, that doesn't mean his complaints were legitimate. Remember the Wire story interviewed other classmates who said that the topic WAS addressed, but not to the extent that the student wanted.
how the university held the conservative professor responsible for things anonymous third parties did to the grad instructor on the internet;
He is being held responsible for his own actions.
and how the university president defied the recommendation of the faculty commission for a suspension and instead gave the conservative professor an ultimatum that he would be fired unless he provided a forced confession to the president's specifications.
Which is perfectly within his right to do.
If that's his ethical defense, it's pathetically weak.
-
Pakuni, it is obvious that you can only understand one side of this case and are willing to comprehend how anyone could see the situation differently. That is fine, but it doesn't make other perspectives wrong.
I may think that this particular undergrad is an immature provocateur wannabe and that McAdams is a blowhard without self-awareness, but that doesn't change the fact that McAdams' legal case is stronger than Marquette's and that he's likely to win in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
As a practicing lawyer, a few points in response to your most recent post:
1) Most trials involve facts about what non-parties did or did not do. There is no rule of evidence that limits the trial universe to the actions taken by parties to the case. "Relevance" in the evidentiary sense is incredibly broad under Wisconsin law.
2) The case is not about Lovell's personal "legal, ethical, professional, or moral obligations." It is about Marquette University and McAdams' contractual obligations to one another. When Marquette granted McAdams tenure, it contractually promised not to fire him for his exercise of academic freedom. There only potential defense here is that McAdams violated the Faculty Handbook's guidelines about misconduct by professors. It would have been a stretch to fire McAdams had the faculty panel recommended that result based on their interpretation of the Faculty Handbook; when Lovell decided to fire McAdams against the faculty panel's recommendation, he really went out on thin ice, with nothing supporting his decision except himself.
3) There is no official scoop "record" containing all of the evidence relevant to a topic--this isn't court--but you should review the summary judgment record developed by McAdams in the actual court case. You might be surprised by what you find.
-
Pakuni, it is obvious that you can only understand one side of this case and are willing to comprehend how anyone could see the situation differently. That is fine, but it doesn't make other perspectives wrong.
I may think that this particular undergrad is an immature provocateur wannabe and that McAdams is a blowhard without self-awareness, but that doesn't change the fact that McAdams' legal case is stronger than Marquette's and that he's likely to win in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
As a practicing lawyer, a few points in response to your most recent post:
1) Most trials involve facts about what non-parties did or did not do. There is no rule of evidence that limits the trial universe to the actions taken by parties to the case. "Relevance" in the evidentiary sense is incredibly broad under Wisconsin law.
2) The case is not about Lovell's personal "legal, ethical, professional, or moral obligations." It is about Marquette University and McAdams' contractual obligations to one another. When Marquette granted McAdams tenure, it contractually promised not to fire him for his exercise of academic freedom. There only potential defense here is that McAdams violated the Faculty Handbook's guidelines about misconduct by professors. It would have been a stretch to fire McAdams had the faculty panel recommended that result based on their interpretation of the Faculty Handbook; when Lovell decided to fire McAdams against the faculty panel's recommendation, he really went out on thin ice, with nothing supporting his decision except himself.
3) There is no official scoop "record" containing all of the evidence relevant to a topic--this isn't court--but you should review the summary judgment record developed by McAdams in the actual court case. You might be surprised by what you find.
And this is all fine and good. That doesn't mean that firing him wasn't the moral and ethical thing to do.
-
And this is all fine and good. That doesn't mean that firing him wasn't the moral and ethical thing to do.
Of course it doesn't. And nothing that Pakuni or anyone else opines doesn't mean that retaining and possibly suspending him wasn't the moral and ethical thing to do. It's a matter of opinion. Anything else is holier than thou posturing.
-
Your lecture about an inability to see other perspectives is interesting coming from a guy who's argument against Judge Hansher's decision is that "he's a liberal." You simply dismiss the ruling not on the merits, but on what you perceive to be the judge's political leanings.
It's not that I can't understand how others might think differently. It's just that I believe those people are offering a kneejerk defense of someone they perceive as an ally/kindred spirit (i.e. McAdams) rather than viewing the facts through an objective lens.
You're free to disagree, but my belief that MU is in the right here makes me no less capable of comprehending the other side than your belief that MU is wrong.
1) Most trials involve facts about what non-parties did or did not do. There is no rule of evidence that limits the trial universe to the actions taken by parties to the case. "Relevance" in the evidentiary sense is incredibly broad under Wisconsin law.
Of course, but this is very different from what you said. Bottom line, contrary to what you claim, the case is not about a brief interaction between an undergrad and his TA. No one, not even McAdams, has argued this.
Even you admit as much when you (correctly) later state that it's a simple contract matter. We agree on that. This case is about 1) Whether McAdams agreed to MU's disciplinary procedures as a condition of his employment and 2) Whether MU adhered to those procedures when McAdams was fired. [/quote]
2) The case is not about Lovell's personal "legal, ethical, professional, or moral obligations." It is about Marquette University and McAdams' contractual obligations to one another.
Agreed.
So what does an interaction between a student and TA have to do with the contractual obligations between Marquette and a tenured professor?
It would have been a stretch to fire McAdams had the faculty panel recommended that result based on their interpretation of the Faculty Handbook; when Lovell decided to fire McAdams against the faculty panel's recommendation, he really went out on thin ice, with nothing supporting his decision except himself.
Nothing? Well, I guess if you consider the well-documented authority of the university president to count for "nothing," you could be right.
Of course, you know this is not true. You know that Lovell has the legal authority to go above and beyond the commission's recommendation. And you know that courts are loathe to supersede such authority in employment matters.
-
Your lecture about an inability to see other perspectives is interesting coming from a guy who's argument against Judge Hansher's decision is that "he's a liberal." You simply dismiss the ruling not on the merits, but on what you perceive to be the judge's political leanings.
That is a straw man. I don't think the circuit judge's ruling will hold up because it is built on deference to Lovell's personal conclusions about whether McAdams' conduct violated the Faculty Handbook, rather than any independent fact finding by the judge. Even if courts were supposed to defer to fact findings by panels of university professors regarding breach of contract matters, which I find unlikely as a matter of law, Lovell's actions aren't supported by that either.
Lovell actions amount to: "McAdams, I know that we said we wouldn't fire you when we granted you tenure, and I know the faculty panel concluded that what you did doesn't warrant firing you, but I really don't like what you did and I want a public apology, so dammit you're going to give me that or you're fired." I don't think that is a winning case.
Honestly, it is pretty clear that the circuit judge knew that this case was not going to be resolved via a trial, because he knew either party would appeal if it lost, so he picked the route that got the case up on appeal fastest. He leans liberal so he sympathized with the university purporting to defend a student from harm by a powerful professor. The Wisconsin Supreme Court currently leans conservative, so it is likely to sympathize with the professor fired for expressing politically incorrect views that lead to unknown third parties saying bad things on the internet.
-
This is such a blatant misstatement of reality. I mean, at what point exactly did you decide to become Chico's?
Nobody on any side of this debate has ever suggested Abbate was immune from criticism. To the contrary, if there's one thing everyone agrees upon, it's that she handled the situation poorly.
But this isn't about how she handled it. Or about secret recordings. Or academic freedom. Or campus politics. Or any of the other noise you and others are making to cloud the real issue here.
This is about a professor using his considerable platform to subject a student to public ridicule (and worse ... though I believe worse was not his intent), after he'd already been warned against such behavior by the administration after he'd done so in the past.
It's also about an arrogant and stubborn man who'd rather drag everyone down into the muck with him rather than simply admitting he was wrong, apologizing for it and moving on.
Can he plead the Hillary defense; no intent.
-
Lovell actions amount to: "McAdams, I know that we said we wouldn't fire you when we granted you tenure, and I know the faculty panel concluded that what you did doesn't warrant firing you, but I really don't like what you did and I want a public apology, so dammit you're going to give me that or you're fired." I don't think that is a winning case.
It's clear you don't really understand the concept of tenure. You are also leaving out a very important piece of evidence. McAdams was previously warned that using students names in his blogs (particularly in a defamatory manner) is unacceptable and could result in revocation of tenure. He had acknowledged to administration he understood.
He did it anyway, and his tenure was revoked.
This is not an academic freedom issue, it is a violation of university conduct policies involving the release of information regarding students. Abbate was a student. McAdams violated conduct policies that he was warned could result in revocation of tenure.
This is not and should not be a political issue. It is an issue of unethical, an immoral conduct that violated established University guidelines of behavior regarding students.
-
This is not an academic freedom issue, it is a violation of university conduct policies involving the release of information regarding students. Abbate was a student.
Again, just stating that this case is not about academic freedom does not convert that conclusion into reality. The university contractually promised McAdams that none of its conduct policies would be interpreted in a manner so as to infringe on His academic freedom. McAdams claims that MU breached that promise by firing him of this incident; MU denies that. Whether academic freedom was infringed here is literally the centerpiece of the case, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I happen to think should have been decided by a jury).
-
Again, just stating that this case is not about academic freedom does not convert that conclusion into reality. The university contractually promised McAdams that none of its conduct policies would be interpreted in a manner so as to infringe on His academic freedom. McAdams claims that MU breached that promise by firing him of this incident; MU denies that. Whether academic freedom was infringed here is literally the centerpiece of the case, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I happen to think should have been decided by a jury).
No, counselor, it shouldn't have been decided by a jury. Juries decide matters of fact. Judges decide matters of law. In this case, there is no dispute as to the facts. McAdams doesn't deny writing the blog. The dispute is in regards to the application of the law to those facts.
This from Inside High Ed:
1. Academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
12. Academic freedom does not protect a faculty member from investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct or violations of sound university policies, nor from appropriate penalties should such charges be sustained in a hearing of record before an elected faculty body.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom
-
No, counselor, it shouldn't have been decided by a jury. Juries decide matters of fact. Judges decide matters of law. In this case, there is no dispute as to the facts. McAdams doesn't deny writing the blog. The dispute is in regards to the application of the law to those facts.
This from Inside High Ed:
1. Academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.
8. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from sanctions for professional misconduct, though sanctions require clear proof established through due process.
12. Academic freedom does not protect a faculty member from investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct or violations of sound university policies, nor from appropriate penalties should such charges be sustained in a hearing of record before an elected faculty body.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom
I would take the time to explain why I think this case involves mixed questions of law and fact that require jury findings, but I'm sure you don't really care.
-
MU got some bad publicity in the WSJ today on this matter.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-jesuit-school-gets-dogmatic-1515362173
-
My problem with this whole mess is that once again MU Administration allows a minor problem to become a BFD, allowing Mark Belling to add a chapter to his "I hate Marquette" book.
The chair of the appropriate department should have put the student and the instructor into a room and worked this out. I hate it when my esteemed Alma Mater continually steps on its stuff and looks stupid. The Trustees should ask Lovell how this whole thing got so out of control.
-
It's happening.
This case is bypassing Appeals and going straight to WI Supreme Court.
-
It's happening.
This case is bypassing Appeals and going straight to WI Supreme Court.
No order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court yet.
-
I have read over this topic from this site and pleased with the thoughtful discussion. I am not lawyer but do appreciate the differing views here and how they are expressed. What is interesting to me is the views that look at this mess from a truly differing point--i.e.--I like McAdams and shared his views but he was once a good guy and is now an old jerk. Or, people look at this whole thing as a failure of Marquette to manage a PR mess. I'm mostly in this last viewpoint. The last place you want to read about your alma mater is getting bad PR in national publication (WSJ), even if it is in the editorial page. The sad part is these days if you want to call your university a Catholic one you had better have thick skin, because you will get flack from people who believe you are not Catholic enough and those who believe you are stuck in the 1950s. When I was at MU in the 80s I felt Fr Raynor did a good job of playing the sensible middle ground, and I don't recall many who questioned how Catholic MU was, even with Dan Maquire teaching in the THEO dept.
-
My problem with this whole mess is that once again MU Administration allows a minor problem to become a BFD, allowing Mark Belling to add a chapter to his "I hate Marquette" book.
Who cares what that blowhard thinks about Marquette?
-
MU got some bad publicity in the WSJ today on this matter.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-jesuit-school-gets-dogmatic-1515362173
NICE!!!
Marquette is doing something right if the WSJ and Mark Belling think they screwed up!!!
Honestly, even if they lose this case it was worth it.
-
Honestly, even if they lose this case it was worth it.
Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus. Now he gets to play the victim card. They pissed off a substantial number of donors. And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).
And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.
-
Who cares what that blowhard thinks about Marquette?
Are you referring to Mark Belling or mu-rara?
-
Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus. Now he gets to play the victim card. They pissed off a substantial number of donors. And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).
And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.
Because they got his fat, student-abusing a$$ off campus. And of course he's going to play the victim. That's what conservatives do now.
-
No order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court yet.
Date for Oral Argument hasn't been assigned yet. Will be held sometime in April.
But the bypass vote was taken and passed.
Was talking to a few faculty members today at MU and they mentioned the WSJ editorial and hoped the Supreme Court would take the case so the "academic freedom" issue can be addressed. I know many here scoff, but that overriding issue is a concern for at least some of the faculty.
-
Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus. Now he gets to play the victim card. They pissed off a substantial number of donors. And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).
And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.
good points-plus check to see how well the bad pub surrounding mizzou when the "can we can some muscle over here" incidents came to a head. behind the scenes, it hurt mizzou more than they would like you to know nor care to admit. they have 7 brand new dorms sitting empty and they are cutting 400 jobs...
ok, MU's thing didn't go this far, but i don't think they were clinking glasses in lovell's office over the framing of the WSJ article either. if they "poo-poo" this, they better factor in some type of change and how they are going to combat it. i know most of you have heard the term "boiling the frog" well, in business, this can be a real humbling experience. worse if ya saw it coming and did nothing
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
-
Again, just stating that this case is not about academic freedom does not convert that conclusion into reality. The university contractually promised McAdams that none of its conduct policies would be interpreted in a manner so as to infringe on His academic freedom. McAdams claims that MU breached that promise by firing him of this incident; MU denies that. Whether academic freedom was infringed here is literally the centerpiece of the case, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I happen to think should have been decided by a jury).
Exactly. Marquette's own Faculty Statute makes it clear that a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom: "In no case, however, shall discretionary cause for dismissal 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." "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."
And for the most part, as I read through this thread, I kept thinking this has been a good, respectful back and forth of opinions. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, that's why there are so many 5-4 decisions. That's why in law school, they teach students to argue both sides of an issue. Then I saw this:
"That's what conservatives do now," said the one who always has to take a topic in a certain direction.
I'm in before Rocky locks this up.
-
Exactly. Marquette's own Faculty Statute makes it clear that a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom: "In no case, however, shall discretionary cause for dismissal 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." "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."
Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"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."
http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
-
Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"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."
http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
Exactly. Academic freedom rules aren't what is in question here. And tenure as a lifetime contract is hardly absolute.
But if course it's going to come down to the judges. We will see if they actually adhere to the contract that is in place or they are going turn McAdams into a martyr. We can then add "activist judges" to the things that conservatives pretend to care about...along with "budget deficits," "state's rights" and "black people."
-
And for the most part, as I read through this thread, I kept thinking this has been a good, respectful back and forth of opinions. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, that's why there are so many 5-4 decisions. That's why in law school, they teach students to argue both sides of an issue. Then I saw this:
"That's what conservatives do now,"
What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x". I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.
But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA. No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.
But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.
-
What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x". I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.
But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA. No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.
But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.
Agreed. Well stated.
-
What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x". I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.
But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA. No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.
But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.
Agreed.
McAdams could have just as (if not more) effectively made every point he wanted to make, been just as critical of Marquette, liberalism, fellow academics, etc., without calling out the TA by name, and there would have been no consequence to him.
The fact he chose to name Abbate and later refused to acknowledge that was a mistake is what got him fired.
-
But if course it's going to come down to the judges.
Finally a fact instead of an insult - too bad that to get there I had to take it out of context.
-
Finally a fact instead of an insult - too bad that to get there I had to take it out of context.
Such is life.
-
Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"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."
http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
The problem with this argument is that a motivated administration can always identify some "special obligation" that a professor they don't like has supposedly violated and use that as pretext for a firing that intrudes on academic freedom. MU's interpretation of its Faculty Handbook turns its contractual promise of academic freedom into a nullity.
-
The problem with this argument is that a motivated administration can always identify some "special obligation" that a professor they don't like has supposedly violated and use that as pretext for a firing that intrudes on academic freedom. MU's interpretation of its Faculty Handbook turns its contractual promise of academic freedom into a nullity.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?
Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics
Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"
The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.
-
Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a student came to Dr. McAdams and said that a particular graduate student advocates puppy torture, and without properly vetting the information, he prints that charge along with her name and a link to her contact information. She suffers a similar fate, including dealing with death threats, due to the reaction from radical animal activists.
Do those of you who think this is an academic freedom issue believe McAdams should be punished in that situation? Keep in mind he had been previously reprimanded for publishing personal student information.
-
I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?
Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics
Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"
The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.
Furthermore, when McAdams was reprimanded twice earlier by Marquette for calling out students in his blogs earlier, he edited his blog posts and/or acknowledged that the deed was concerning.
Then he did it again.
He has a history of being reckless in his obligations of a faculty member when it comes to working with students. This is not an "academic freedom" issue.
-
Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a student came to Dr. McAdams and said that a particular graduate student advocates puppy torture, and without properly vetting the information, he prints that charge along with her name and a link to her contact information. She suffers a similar fate, including dealing with death threats, due to the reaction from radical animal activists.
Do those of you who think this is an academic freedom issue believe McAdams should be punished in that situation? Keep in mind he had been previously reprimanded for publishing personal student information.
I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.
Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack. Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?
-
I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.
Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack. Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?
Yes. If by "sloppy blogging" you mean "a history of naming students in his/her blog and was warned of the inappropriateness of that behavior previously."
-
I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.
Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack. Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?
Sorry for the very extreme example here, but you seem to excuse all the others:
If he published your mother's name and address and said that she has rape fantasies that she hopes someone helps her fulfill, that would be okay?
-
Yes. If by "sloppy blogging" you mean "a history of naming students in his/her blog and was warned of the inappropriateness of that behavior previously."
I found interesting and telling that he chose to reframe McAdams' behavior as a matter of mere sloppiness rather than wilful malice. Like, writing her name seven times and including a link to her personal blog was simply an oversight.
-
I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?
My point is that limiting academic freedom based on a vague concept such as the "special obligations" of professors seriously undercuts the entire concept of academic freedom. My view, with respect to issues affecting academic scholarship, politics, the university, or the education system generally, professors should be allowed to say whatever they like without fear of punishment, short of immediate incitement to violence. Otherwise you have administrators like Lovell acting as thought police.
Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics
Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"
First, none of what you quoted actually comes from MU's Faculty Handbook; the fact MU has to reach beyond its own materials to find support for its arguments is part of the problem. Second, I'm not sure how McAdams "exploited," "harassed," or "discriminated" against Abbate; such words do little to clarify things beyond vague notions that actually appear in the Faculty Handbook such as "special obligations." Third, Abbate was not McAdams' student; I think there is an important distinction between a professor's obligations to his own students and his obligations to graduate students teaching classes on the other side of campus.
The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.
No one is saying it is unlawful for MU have whatever standard of academic freedom it wants on campus. What they're saying is MU can't simultaneously promise professors via contract that they will given identical academic freedom as protected for public school professors by the First Amendment, and then turn around and violate such protections. No judge will have to rely on anything other than the terms of MU's own Faculty Handbook, drafted by MU itself, in order to rule in McAdams' favor. You seem to think that any result that you don't like is "judicial activism."
-
Sorry for the very extreme example here, but you seem to excuse all the others:
If he published your mother's name and address and said that she has rape fantasies that she hopes someone helps her fulfill, that would be okay?
No. That would have nothing to do with academics and would potentially be illegal conduct. As you acknowledge, its a bad hypothetical.
-
I found interesting and telling that he chose to reframe McAdams' behavior as a matter of mere sloppiness rather than wilful malice. Like, writing her name seven times and including a link to her personal blog was simply an oversight.
Okay, let's accept your critique. Let's assume the English professor in my hypothetical below acted with "actual malice" because she hates anyone who opposes gay marriage. Does that mean she should be fired for her blog post?
Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack. Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?
-
Okay, let's accept your critique. Let's assume the English professor in my hypothetical below acted with "actual malice" because she hates anyone who opposes gay marriage. Does that mean she should be fired for her blog post?
Yes. Attacking a student by name in a public forum not only serves no legitimate academic purpose, but is a fireable offense. The fact that Abbate received threats and harassment, which ought to have been foreseen by McAdams, makes this all the more obvious.
Again, McAdams could have effectively made his point and issued his critique without naming her. The fact that he chose to do so - again and again and again - merely confirms that he acted not out of academic pursuit, but out of malfeasance.
-
First, none of what you quoted actually comes from MU's Faculty Handbook; the fact MU has to reach beyond its own materials to find support for its arguments is part of the problem.
This is not correct.
Second, I'm not sure how McAdams "exploited," "harassed," or "discriminated" against Abbate;
He publicly attacked her character and ridiculed her abilities to draw eyeballs to his blog. If you don't see that as harassment, at the very least, I can't help you any more.
Third, Abbate was not McAdams' student; I think there is an important distinction between a professor's obligations to his own students and his obligations to graduate students teaching classes on the other side of campus.
No, there isn't. You're making things up now.
No one is saying it is unlawful for MU have whatever standard of academic freedom it wants on campus. What they're saying is MU can't simultaneously promise professors via contract that they will given identical academic freedom as protected for public school professors by the First Amendment,
You'll have to point out for me the portion of the First Amendment that grants academic freedom.
You seem to think that any result that you don't like is "judicial activism."
Silly ad hominem. I guess that's what we've come to.
-
My problem with this whole mess is that once again MU Administration allows a minor problem to become a BFD, allowing Mark Belling to add a chapter to his "I hate Marquette" book.
Who's that?
-
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2211083
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814
-
You'll have to point out for me the portion of the First Amendment that grants academic freedom.
Here's the cite to the Supreme Court case: Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.").
-
No. That would have nothing to do with academics and would potentially be illegal conduct. As you acknowledge, its a bad hypothetical.
He might get arrested, but according to the way I understand your argument, he shouldn't get fired.
-
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2211083
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814
So what?
-
He might get arrested, but according to the way I understand your argument, he shouldn't get fired.
You don't understand my argument then. Your rape hypothetical is different on two important dimensions: 1) the conduct at issue is not contractually protected by the provisions in the Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom because the speech has nothing to do with academics/the university/education; 2) the conduct in your hypothetical is potentially illegal (depending on what exactly was written) because it could be found to constitute incitement to violence not protected by the First Amendment and I assume MU's Faculty Handbook has some provision that allows tenured professors to be removed based on criminal conduct.
-
My point is that limiting academic freedom based on a vague concept such as the "special obligations" of professors seriously undercuts the entire concept of academic freedom. My view, with respect to issues affecting academic scholarship, politics, the university, or the education system generally, professors should be allowed to say whatever they like without fear of punishment, short of immediate incitement to violence. Otherwise you have administrators like Lovell acting as thought police.
That is absolutely ridiculous. McAdams could have done every thing he did without naming Abbatte and he would have been well within his bounds. He's done and said all sorts of things in his blog that were "anti-Marquette" or "anti-administration," and the ONLY time he was reprimanded by Marquette is when he named students. Which he did repeatedly.
There is zero evidence that Marquette acts as "thought-police" when it comes to tenured faculty members. Oh unless the faculty member is a lesbian and the local bishop gets his nose out of whack.
-
It's weird seeing people on the right advocating for academic freedom and tenure...
McAdams was a bad teacher. Not in the classroom, he was actually great, but ridiculing students by name in a public forum makes you a bad teacher. He needed to go. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. He was bad at his job and needed to be fired.
-
Here's the cite to the Supreme Court case: Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.").
Keyishian deals with a government entity (not private university) dismissing and barring employees for political activity. Those employees just so happened to be university faculty. In other words, not only irrelevant to McAdams, but also not relevant to academic freedom in the context you're using it.
Moreover, the case very clearly does not state academic freedom is an absolute First Amedment right. But rather that "government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."
-
Keyishian deals with a government entity (not private university) dismissing and barring employees for political activity. Those employees just so happened to be university faculty. In other words, not only irrelevant to McAdams, but also not relevant to academic freedom in the context you're using it.
Moreover, the case very clearly does not state academic freedom is an absolute First Amedment right. But rather that "government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."
Its a complicated topic isn't it. Maybe you should refrain from bald proclamations about how the First Amendment and academic freedom have no relevancy to McAdams' case. (Also, as I noted in my post above, MU contractually promises to afford its professors the same FA protections as available to those at public schools, so your first point is a distinction without a difference.)
-
It's weird seeing people on the right advocating for academic freedom and tenure...
McAdams was a bad teacher. Not in the classroom, he was actually great, but ridiculing students by name in a public forum makes you a bad teacher. He needed to go. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. He was bad at his job and needed to be fired.
If being bad at your job were enough to get tenured professors fired, there would be even more out of work PhDs...
-
Its a complicated topic isn't it. Maybe you should refrain from bald proclamations about how the First Amendment and academic freedom have no relevancy to McAdams' case. (Also, as I noted in my post above, MU contractually promises to afford its professors the same FA protections as available to those at public schools, so your first point is a distinction without a difference.)
1. I don't believe I made any such proclamation.
2. I do not believe McAdams' firing is a First Amendment case. Neither do you, judging by your earlier statements in this thread.
-
2. I don't not believe McAdams' firing is a First Amendment case. Neither do you, judging by your earlier statements in this thread.
It's a breach of contract case with first amendment undertones. Contractually, MU can't dismiss faculty to retrain their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution. If, it's ultimately held that the dismissal was used to restrain McAdams in his First Amendment rights, they breached his contract. The First Amendment is absolutely relevant in this case.
-
It's a breach of contract case with first amendment undertones. Contractually, MU can't dismiss faculty to retrain their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution. If, it's ultimately held that the dismissal was used to restrain McAdams in his First Amendment rights, they breached his contract. The First Amendment is absolutely relevant in this case.
Apparently I'm the only one around here who hasn't had his hands on McAdams' contract, supposedly stating that he can say anything without repercussion.
Problem is, that's not actually true. The faculty handbook, to which he agreed to abide, states that he should "exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others," among other limitations.
Again, it's not as First Amendment case. It's a contract case.
-
Tenured professors getting fired for violations of the terms of their employment happens pretty regularly. Absolutely a contract case and not a first amendment one.
-
If being bad at your job were enough to get tenured professors fired, there would be even more out of work PhDs...
And there should be more out of work PhDs. But that's an entirely other issue.
The point I was making that McAdams violated his terms of employment and was fired for it. That is not protected by tenure or academic freedom. He could have left the student's name out of his blog and this would have been a non-issue.
The fact that people I know have criticized the reach of tenure and academic freedom in the past are now using it to try to defend a professor who bullied students at his place of employment just because of the professor's political leanings is amusing to me.
-
And there should be more out of work PhDs. But that's an entirely other issue.
The point I was making that McAdams violated his terms of employment and was fired for it. That is not protected by tenure or academic freedom. He could have left the student's name out of his blog and this would have been a non-issue.
The fact that people I know have criticized the reach of tenure and academic freedom in the past are now using it to try to defend a professor who bullied students at his place of employment just because of the professor's political leanings is amusing to me.
I get you point and can agree to disagree. I just think it amounts to holding professors responsible for the evils of unknown third parties, which has an obvious chilling effect.
And to your last point, that is likely a good amount of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is equally ironic to hear liberals bemoaning the evils of free speech and academic freedom when they championed such protections when they benefitted them while in the minority on college campuses in the mid-twentieth century.
-
Because they got his fat, student-abusing a$$ off campus. And of course he's going to play the victim. That's what conservatives do now.
^^^^ ban dis guy
-
It is equally ironic to hear liberals bemoaning the evils of free speech and academic freedom when they championed such protections when they benefitted them while in the minority on college campuses in the mid-twentieth century.
This sentence perfectly sums up why your entire argument on this thread is ridiculous.
I know you play a lawyer on Scoop, but you simply tried to argue politics rather the the issues of the case. You lost many pages ago.
-
^^^^ ban dis guy
Give it up. By your superior logic we should have banned this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17241.msg170038#msg170038
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=29540.msg342693#msg342693
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47304.msg722097#msg722097
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=50154.msg794410#msg794410
-
Give it up. By your superior logic we should have banned this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17241.msg170038#msg170038
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=29540.msg342693#msg342693
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47304.msg722097#msg722097
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=50154.msg794410#msg794410
FAKE NEWS! Those were all pre-the May 2016 sticky re: No Politics Zone! Sad!
-
How about this one...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=4528.0
-
How about this one...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=4528.0
No good. Predates me and isn't stickied. Just another old, lost thread. #BanSultan
-
^^^^ ban dis guy
^^^^ Start your own board
-
No good. Predates me and isn't stickied. Just another old, lost thread. #BanSultan
Was pinned until the politics board was created. When we got rid of the poli board, I created the new one. You lose.
-
I get you point and can agree to disagree. I just think it amounts to holding professors responsible for the evils of unknown third parties, which has an obvious chilling effect.
And to your last point, that is likely a good amount of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is equally ironic to hear liberals bemoaning the evils of free speech and academic freedom when they championed such protections when they benefitted them while in the minority on college campuses in the mid-twentieth century.
Well in the mid twentieth century academic freedom was helping protect "liberal" professors who were championing things like the civil rights movement. It's a little different than using it to protect a professor who bullies their students in a public forum.
But more to the point, I haven't seen anyone bemoaning free speech or academic freedom in this thread. Both of those are valuable and should be protected. But we don't believe that those protect a professor from reprisal when they bully students in their public blog
-
Who's that?
A radio personality in MKE with an even wider internet audience. He hates Marquette and will not lose any opportunity to attack.
I don't really care what he says. I just wish Marquette would stop handing him material on a silver platter. We could just start calling them "Marquette Gold" incidents.
-
Are you referring to Mark Belling or mu-rara?
Wow. I thought we were friends?
-
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2211083
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814
These ratings tend to be very accurate. Shows that McAdams is a good quality teacher and the TA not so much.
-
These ratings tend to be very accurate. Shows that McAdams is a good quality teacher and the TA not so much.
If there's one thing that can be counted upon for accuracy, it's an anonymous online poll.
-
Wow. I thought we were friends?
I am just teasing you, honey. ;D
-
These ratings tend to be very accurate. Shows that McAdams is a good quality teacher and the TA not so much.
And what does this have to do with whether or not McAdams should be fired?
-
I am just teasing you, honey. ;D
I know. ;)
-
These ratings tend to be very accurate. Shows that McAdams is a good quality teacher and the TA not so much.
Indeed. I think any website that grades teachers on their hotness with a pepper scale is of the highest academic rigor.
And irrelevant to the conversation.
-
These ratings tend to be very accurate. Shows that McAdams is a good quality teacher and the TA not so much.
Just a heads up -- it appears that your teal button didn't survive the migration to the new server. You should probably let Rocky know so he can trouble-shoot that.
-
^^^^ ban dis guy
from the (nh) guy! Classic.
-
Duz McAdams have a PhD? Just axin?, hey?
-
Ok .. this has run its course.