MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Ellenson Guerrero on January 22, 2018, 07:39:38 PM
-
The Wisconsin Supreme Court this afternoon accepted McAdams' petition to bypass the Court of Appeals and will hear his case this spring. This is pretty unusual, but not surprising given the make up of the court and the attention nationally that this case has received.
https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=A587DE4BF64F2ACC0A6EFA6275ECE7AC?caseNo=2017AP001240&cacheId=55D7340CE394F9218C410C72BC30B6F1&recordCount=1&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC
PS feel free to lock this thread as this case is obviously no longer of concern to people who follow Marquette.
-
I'm looking forward to the conservatives crying over "judicial activism."
Oh yeah... Not going to happen because it's protecting one of their own. Typical.
-
In before the LOCK!!!
-
Crean sucks
-
Whew...so this will finally be over ~July. That's overdue, regardless of outcome.
-
I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up
-
I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up
I haven't insulted anyone, made this about politics, or resorted to name calling anywhere. Its silly if our alma mater is in litigation with a professor in front of the highest court in the state and we can't have a topic on it in the freakin' Superbar. If people don't want to hear about McAdams, there are plenty of other threads about the Bucks, baseball, snowstorms and a million other things that have nothing to do with MU.
-
#FreeMcAdams
-
I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up
I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.
-
#FreeMcAdams
Seems like he's plenty free...to get a job elsewhere.
-
I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.
Thanks for allowing it because some of us might want to read about it, though someone near the top made it political already.
-
Whew...so this will finally be over ~July. That's overdue, regardless of outcome.
Yeah...these types of things never seem to go away. We'll still be seeing posts of this when Luca Diener win's his 4th consecutive national title for MU.
-
I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.
I like you, Rocky. You're a good dude.
-
I said a while ago that they had voted to take the case.
Remember I also said there was going to be a recusal by one of the conservative justices, so you will have a panel of 6 hearing the case.
-
The topic isn't 'bad.' -- I locked the original McAdams' thread because it had been around for months, nothing of substance had been written for a while and it ended with bickering.
The 2nd thread was just going to go the same road.
Admittedly, the having the WISC take this case is newsworthy. Enjoy the thread while you can.
-
Thanks for allowing it because some of us might want to read about it, though someone near the top made it political already.
Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful.
-
Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/e3/e3/f0e3e35693ac76cc5efb0dc773103bf7.gif)
-
Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful.
Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law. It's an interesting case because both sides can point to good and bad facts for them and there is no real controlling precedent that clearly dictates how things should shake out. My prediction is that the Supreme Court really homes in on this issue of "deference" and whether the circuit judge abused his discretion by deferring to Lovell's interpretation of the situation. I think that shakes out in McAdams favor, but you never know.
-
Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law. It's an interesting case because both sides can point to good and bad facts for them and there is no real controlling precedent that clearly dictates how things should shake out. My prediction is that the Supreme Court really homes in on this issue of "deference" and whether the circuit judge abused his discretion by deferring to Lovell's interpretation of the situation. I think that shakes out in McAdams favor, but you never know.
Bullsh*t. It will shake out in McAdams favor because of the political make up of the court. I mean, it's the entire reason the court took up the case. I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years.
Why this one? I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.
-
I think there are a lot of people confused about this case. Maybe not confused, but freely weave their own personal narrative and feelings onto the case itself. They've simply made up their mind based on their own feelings, regardless of any additional information available or that will become available.
Regardless of politics, this case has major implications. I am looking forward to watching this play out.
-
I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years.
Why this one? I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.
Who? There might be such professors, but not many. And if they did get fired, it was probably for something criminal. This case is many things, but a run-of-the-mill employment law claim is not one of them.
-
Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law.
Regardless of politics, this case has major implications. I am looking forward to watching this play out.
What ambiguities or holes in WI law require the Supreme Court to establish precedent in this case?
As I understand it, the case is strictly a matter of whether Marquette violated their contract with McAdams by firing him for things they said they wouldn't. To the extent this case has any bearing on academic freedom or any of the larger drums being beat, that is only true inasmuch as Marquette's standard tenure contracts use language that is commonly used by other universities, correct? If the Supreme Court rules against Marquette, they (and all other universities keeping a close eye on this) could just adjust their standard tenure contracts going forward?
-
I'm curious as to where all those defending McAdams on the basis of academic freedom stood on the Susannah Bartlow matter.
-
Seeing conservatives fighting for stronger protections for tenure is hilarious
-
Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful.
The other threads turned into that and they were locked. You're trying to turn this thread into one as well. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out from a legal standpoint and haven't prejudged how the Wisconsin Supremes will rule since it's difficult to tell yet what specific issues they'll ultimately hang their collective hat on.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of tenure. Too many bad professors out there with seemingly lifetime gigs.
-
What ambiguities or holes in WI law require the Supreme Court to establish precedent in this case?
As I understand it, the case is strictly a matter of whether Marquette violated their contract with McAdams by firing him for things they said they wouldn't. To the extent this case has any bearing on academic freedom or any of the larger drums being beat, that is only true inasmuch as Marquette's standard tenure contracts use language that is commonly used by other universities, correct? If the Supreme Court rules against Marquette, they (and all other universities keeping a close eye on this) could just adjust their standard tenure contracts going forward?
While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility. If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.
The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.
-
Seeing conservatives fighting for stronger protections for tenure is hilarious
Not only that, but they want judges to tell a private enterprise how it can discipline its employee.
It's only judicial activism when the court takes the other side.
-
The other threads turned into that and they were locked. You're trying to turn this thread into one as well. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out from a legal standpoint and haven't prejudged how the Wisconsin Supremes will rule since it's difficult to tell yet what specific issues they'll ultimately hang their collective hat on.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of tenure. Too many bad professors out there with seemingly lifetime gigs.
Good for you.
-
Who? There might be such professors, but not many. And if they did get fired, it was probably for something criminal. This case is many things, but a run-of-the-mill employment law claim is not one of them.
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2017/12/uw-platteville-panel-recommends-firing-whistleblower-professor/
-
While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility. If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.
The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.
But wouldn't the bolded section only be true if McAdams were challenging MU's professor conduct policy in the first place (is he? I must confess I haven't read the pleading) rather than challenging whether MU followed it?
And as for the first part - are public schools' policies hemmed in by the First Amendment if the policy itself doesn't reference it? My understanding is that the government qua employer can curtail speech in the employee's performance of his or her job duties. To me there seems to be a tension between arguing both "I can say this because it should be protected in the name of academic freedom" and "You can't stop me from saying this because I'm saying it off the clock."
-
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2017/12/uw-platteville-panel-recommends-firing-whistleblower-professor/
Sounds like she’s pursuing a lawsuit. Maybe McAdams’ lawsuit will clarify the law for hers.
-
Today's edition of the WSJ had its fourth blurb on this matter in the past month. Not real in-depth though. https://www.wsj.com/articles/marquette-and-the-first-amendment-1517181797
-
While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility. If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.
The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.
If MU changed their faculty handbook so that people like McAdams' would get fired for what he did, it would have zero effect on recruiting. Most faculty think he should be fired, he violated fundamental ethical principles of academia.
And the UW system is highly criticized for not protecting tenure. They have lost many of their top faculty because of changes the current state government put in place regarding tenure. It is regarded as a government hostile to academics, and it is far far harder for them to recruit top faculty. MU would not be affected at all by a change of wording.
I don't think you realize that faculty across the nation think what McAdams did was horribly wrong, and that he should be fired for his actions. Those that look at this solely based on an academic freedom/tenure standpoint think he should be fired. It is only those that look at this through a political lens (and then the far-right conservative lens) that think he was wronged.
-
If MU changed their faculty handbook so that people like McAdams' would get fired for what he did, it would have zero effect on recruiting. Most faculty think he should be fired, he violated fundamental ethical principles of academia.
And the UW system is highly criticized for not protecting tenure. They have lost many of their top faculty because of changes the current state government put in place regarding tenure. It is regarded as a government hostile to academics, and it is far far harder for them to recruit top faculty. MU would not be affected at all by a change of wording.
I don't think you realize that faculty across the nation think what McAdams did was horribly wrong, and that he should be fired for his actions. Those that look at this solely based on an academic freedom/tenure standpoint think he should be fired. It is only those that look at this through a political lens (and then the far-right conservative lens) that think he was wronged.
False, false, and false.
-
False, false, and false.
Only anecdotal evidence on my part but every staff and faculty member I have spoken to about it think he should be fired.
-
False, false, and false.
As a faculty member, I have talked about this case with numerous faculty at multiple institutions. I have yet to meet one that is aware of the case that doesn't think he should be fired.
That includes three of my colleagues that I would consider far-right wing conservatives.
If you want to know of a revocation of tenure that did greatly upset faculty nation wide, I will point you to this one.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/President-of-U-of-Southern/101751
(https://www.chronicle.com/article/President-of-U-of-Southern/101751)
I remember when that one occurred. Faculty around the country universally condemned the action of the University. I'm sure there were some though, that thought iit was ok, but I never met any. This one is the opposite end of the spectrum. It is hard to find a person (in academia) who thinks McAdams was wronged.
It is certainly possible (albeit extremely improbable) that somehow I know only faculty that represent the minority. But I find it hard to believe that if my two peers who think Trump is a savior and Roy Moore is an american hero also think McAdams should be fired, that they are also in the minority. Anecdotal, yes, but sufficient to say that the probability I'm right is very very high.
-
I haven't insulted anyone, made this about politics, or resorted to name calling anywhere. Its silly if our alma mater is in litigation with a professor in front of the highest court in the state and we can't have a topic on it in the freakin' Superbar. If people don't want to hear about McAdams, there are plenty of other threads about the Bucks, baseball, snowstorms and a million other things that have nothing to do with MU.
Very well stated-thank you for the clarity! Sully’ s already projecting his “cya” moment-Always gonna be those who only respect the process when it goes their way, but “co-exist” ehy’ na?
-
Bullsh*t. It will shake out in McAdams favor because of the political make up of the court. I mean, it's the entire reason the court took up the case. I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years.
Why this one? I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.
You really are trying to get this one locked up aren’t you. How’s about a little sabbatical mr victim. I spose you would rather have the 9th circuit have this one-what a surprise
-
I am Pro McAdams and hope he wins the case.
-
In before the lock.
-
I think this could be a very interesting thread if someone doesn’t “scorch earth” it.
-
I am Pro McAdams and hope he wins the case.
Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here. If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.
Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams". Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits. Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people. Instead, it is all about party...party over country.
I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.
-
Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here. If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.
Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams". Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits. Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people. Instead, it is all about party...party over country.
I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.
This is a first amendment case which is being tried through the prism of a contract claim . I have felt that since the beginning.
I like at this case in two ways. First as a citizen , who comes from a cultural heritage where many of my ancestors rights were completely trashed. Second, As a former Trustee of several Educational Institutions, where I would want our administration to have the maximum flexibility with legal issues.
In this case I side with free speech rights. The Educational Institution can easily amend its contracts.
The people opposing McAdams out of opposition to his political beliefs need to be careful what they wish for. If McAdams were to lose this case, it would further strengthen the hand of the Institutional world to suppress speech. Today the institutional world at all levels is controlled by left wingers , that may not necessarily be the case in the future.
Also the hallmark of the Jesuit system is they take people how to think about issues not what they should think. I think MU really needs to take an introspective look at itself and examine if it has gone to far in the direction of the latter at the expense of the former.
-
It most certainly is not a first amendment case.
-
So, Herm believes McAdams has a First Amendment right to bully a student, but the New York Times doesn't have a First Amendment right to report news.
That's one Hot Taek.
-
Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here. If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.
Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams". Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits. Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people. Instead, it is all about party...party over country.
I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.
Amen.
And I got a great laugh from Cain's response.
-
This is a first amendment case which is being tried through the prism of a contract claim . I have felt that since the beginning.
I like at this case in two ways. First as a citizen , who comes from a cultural heritage where many of my ancestors rights were completely trashed. Second, As a former Trustee of several Educational Institutions, where I would want our administration to have the maximum flexibility with legal issues.
In this case I side with free speech rights. The Educational Institution can easily amend its contracts.
The people opposing McAdams out of opposition to his political beliefs need to be careful what they wish for. If McAdams were to lose this case, it would further strengthen the hand of the Institutional world to suppress speech. Today the institutional world at all levels is controlled by left wingers , that may not necessarily be the case in the future.
Also the hallmark of the Jesuit system is they take people how to think about issues not what they should think. I think MU really needs to take an introspective look at itself and examine if it has gone to far in the direction of the latter at the expense of the former.
Before I respond further... What is the "institutional world"?
-
Again. Conservatives arguing for increased protections of tenure is hilarious.
This is one of the clearest examples of party over country that I have seen. It is also a great example of cutting the nose to spite the face. If McAdams wins, then tenure will be strengthened. So the next time a professor allows say a mural of Assata Shakur to be painted on school grounds....the university may not be able to fire him/her....I bet the pro McAdams crowd would love that.
If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.
There's a lot of noise around this case: first amendment, academic freedom, tenure, contracts, etc. Lovell did the right thing by ignoring all of it and doing what was right rather than worrying about what was politically sound. He had a professor who cyberbullied one of his students....after being warned not to do so. Regardless of how good a teach that professor is, he needs to be removed from the classroom.
-
If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.
This exactly. It is a matter of "what is the right thing to do regardless of political alignment?" versus "which side is my team on?"
-
Again. Conservatives arguing for increased protections of tenure is hilarious.
This is one of the clearest examples of party over country that I have seen. It is also a great example of cutting the nose to spite the face. If McAdams wins, then tenure will be strengthened. So the next time a professor allows say a mural of Assata Shakur to be painted on school grounds....the university may not be able to fire him/her....I bet the pro McAdams crowd would love that.
If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.
There's a lot of noise around this case: first amendment, academic freedom, tenure, contracts, etc. Lovell did the right thing by ignoring all of it and doing what was right rather than worrying about what was politically sound. He had a professor who cyberbullied one of his students....after being warned not to do so. Regardless of how good a teach that professor is, he needs to be removed from the classroom.
This exactly. It is a matter of "what is the right thing to do regardless of political alignment?" versus "which side is my team on?"
Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.
Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.
-
Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.
Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.
You are also ignoring the fact that McAdams did not follow proper procedure when dealing with issues such as these.
Look, just say that you want McAdams to win because he is a conservative. At least you would be intellectually honest in doing so instead of justifying it like you are attempting to do now.
-
Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.
Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.
I'm 100% sure the Justices will be asking about the woman being a student vs teacher/employee issue, and that will not break Lovell's way.
-
I'm 100% sure the Justices will be asking about the woman being a student vs teacher/employee issue, and that will not break Lovell's way.
Well she is a student. It would be a case of judicial activism at its worse.
-
Let's do a complete 180 on this.
Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.
Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.
There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.
-
There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.
I would raise my hand. To me this is all about the University having control when an early career employee (student, intern, partial teacher, whatever) is ID'd/attacked on an open blog by a senior member of an organization -- after being warned once before.
If I went after someone in my company in the same way (i.e. a 1st job employee in someone elses organization), my company would probably do more than warn me on round one and would likely do the same in round two. In my mind it is about organizational control and being able to foster a workplace where it is not condoned to publicly go after co-workers - particularly when names were named.
BTW everyone in this situation is not one bit admirable - but that is a different story.
-
My job has social media rules. And there is progressive discipline. It has been made clear that we can be punished up to and including discharge. The same was made clear to McAdams. We have recently fired a training chief for continuing to flout rules after repeated warnings. Same with McAdams. Break the rules often enough....
-
Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.
Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.
When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.
-
Even if this is considered a first amendment issue.. isn't there a limit? People have been fired all over the place for their behavior - verbal or otherwise - on the internet/social media/wherever.
-
Let's do a complete 180 on this.
Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.
Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.
There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.
I would 100% support Marquette in this scenario. Not even a question. This entire issue is about a University faculty member who failed repeatedly in his responsibilities after being warned.
And remember that I supported Bartlow getting fired after the mural incident. Politics isn't my main motivation by any stretch.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47617.msg731625#msg731625
Pretty weak effort Lennys.
-
#FreeMcAdams
Those who agree are in the RIGHT.
My alma mater messed up. The courts shall say it is so.
-
When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.
I thought her supervisor was the guy who taped the kid who taped her.
-
I would raise my hand. To me this is all about the University having control when an early career employee (student, intern, partial teacher, whatever) is ID'd/attacked on an open blog by a senior member of an organization -- after being warned once before.
If I went after someone in my company in the same way (i.e. a 1st job employee in someone elses organization), my company would probably do more than warn me on round one and would likely do the same in round two. In my mind it is about organizational control and being able to foster a workplace where it is not condoned to publicly go after co-workers - particularly when names were named.
BTW everyone in this situation is not one bit admirable - but that is a different story.
He names her but never attacked her. The court will ultimately sort all this out.
-
He names her but never attacked her. The court will ultimately sort all this out.
You are being quite naive.
-
When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.
This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct jurisdiction for .
This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.
I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment. I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.
The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.
-
Let's do a complete 180 on this.
Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.
Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.
There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.
Would 100% support the institution firing the professor. This is a matter of publicly naming a student and attacking them in an online forum. That is 100% a violation of our responsibilities as an educator and a fireable offense.
The subject matter at hand is irrelevant.
If they were reprimanded in the past, and refused to take corrective action, they deserve to have tenure revoked.
If I had done the same thing, I would fully expect to be fired for it.
-
This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct jurisdiction for .
?-(
This is the opposite of what I said. The TA was wrong. What she did was inappropriate. Nothing about it was ok. She needed to be disciplined and I believe she was.
And just like the TA's inappropriate behavior needed to be addressed, so did McAdams'.
This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Again, I would point out that I'm advocating that BOTH McAdams AND the TA be disciplined for their actions. The only one seeming to be advocating for the goose to be let off free but the gander be punished is you. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument.
I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment. I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed.
I am sorry you had to live through bigotry and racism. No one should have to but its a reality that many do. I'm glad you were able to find a way to turn it to your advantage, let it make you better. I reject the idea that bigotry and racism must always be a part of our world and will continue to fight for that belief. I think that is what our Jesuit values call us to do. Luke 3:5.
Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that.
Careful about the naive young person stuff. Heisey might come in here and turn this into another thread about how millennials are better than crusty old boomers ;D
-
This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct jurisdiction for .
This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.
I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment. I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.
The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.
Interesting. Please explain the relationship of political correctness and the liberal agenda with your views on your admitted propensity for having intentionally unprotected sex with drunk girls.
-
This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct jurisdiction for .
Actually that's the exact opposite of what he said.
-
This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct jurisdiction for .
This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.
I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment. I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.
The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.
Herman is speaking some truth! #FreeMcAdams
-
McAdams is free. Mission accomplished.
-
Interesting. Please explain the relationship of political correctness and the liberal agenda with your views on your admitted propensity for having intentionally unprotected sex with drunk girls.
Forgot about that. God this guy takes the cake for creepiest all time on here... and that's not an easy task
-
Would 100% support the institution firing the professor. This is a matter of publicly naming a student and attacking them in an online forum. That is 100% a violation of our responsibilities as an educator and a fireable offense.
The subject matter at hand is irrelevant.
If they were reprimanded in the past, and refused to take corrective action, they deserve to have tenure revoked.
If I had done the same thing, I would fully expect to be fired for it.
Remember that in my example everything would be turned on its head. The WSJ, Fox News, the evil conservative Wisconsin Supremes and Rush Limbaugh would be supporting Marquette's right (dare I say duty?) to fire the liberal icon. The NYT, WaPo, "reasoned" liberal Wisconsin circuit court judges, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell would be outraged by Marquette's assault on a tenured professor's first amendment rights.
Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.
-
More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter
-
More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter
The fact that you read a publication that defended Roy Moore's dating of teens is all I need to know about you
-
Remember that in my example everything would be turned on its head. The WSJ, Fox News, the evil conservative Wisconsin Supremes and Rush Limbaugh would be supporting Marquette's right (dare I say duty?) to fire the liberal icon. The NYT, WaPo, "reasoned" liberal Wisconsin circuit court judges, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell would be outraged by Marquette's assault on a tenured professor's first amendment rights.
Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.
Nice try. You're wrong.
You can try to paint me into a political corner, but you are failing miserably.
-
More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter
Biased political lens.
-
More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter
If someone wants to bash the writer because she went to ND law school and teaches at ND's business school, you'd be justified, because we all know ND blows. On the other hand, it's a very well written article.
-
Interesting. Please explain the relationship of political correctness and the liberal agenda with your views on your admitted propensity for having intentionally unprotected sex with drunk girls.
Just want to make sure to bump this.
-
If someone wants to bash the writer because she went to ND law school and teaches at ND's business school, you'd be justified, because we all know ND blows. On the other hand, it's a very well written article.
Outside of the fact that it is missing key facts...for instance that McAdams had been reprimanded in the past for similar actions.
Look, it's obvious how the WI Supremes are going to rule. And people will hypocritically be happy. But of course it won't be the first time those who are cheering are hypocrites - the last 18 months have been proof of that.
-
The fact that you read a publication that defended Roy Moore's dating of teens is all I need to know about you
No, it actually does not. And I found the article on Twitter anyway.
-
No, it actually does not. And I found the article on Twitter anyway.
In which case I would advise you vet your sources better. There's a reason I don't post things from places like Rawstory or Huffpost anymore.
-
Look, it's obvious how the WI Supremes are going to rule.
Wait - it's obvious? I mean this sincerely, I'm not connected to WI in any way other than Marquette. Why is it obvious?
-
Wait - it's obvious? I mean this sincerely, I'm not connected to WI in any way other than Marquette. Why is it obvious?
Because I don't think the Supremes would have taken the case directly (bypassing the Court of Appeals) had they not wanted to rule on this directly.
-
Remember that in my example everything would be turned on its head. The WSJ, Fox News, the evil conservative Wisconsin Supremes and Rush Limbaugh would be supporting Marquette's right (dare I say duty?) to fire the liberal icon. The NYT, WaPo, "reasoned" liberal Wisconsin circuit court judges, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell would be outraged by Marquette's assault on a tenured professor's first amendment rights.
Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.
I guess I'm confused by the point you're trying very hard to make.
Has anyone here penned "scores of posts" championing the left's version of Fox News and Limbaugh (MSNBC and Maddow, perhaps)? Has anyone called the Wisconsin Supreme Court evil?* I mean, there are so many straw men in your hypothetical you could put on a Broadway revival of 'The Wiz.'
To answer your question, I'd support the dismissal of any college professor who intentionally exposes a student to public scorn and harassment after having been previously warned that such behavior was not acceptable.
To be clear, I knew nothing of McAdams or his politics before this whole kerfuffle began. I'd never read his blog. Never had a class with him. Actually never heard of him beyond that I knew he was pro-Warrior mascot guy. But that's hardly (as far as I can tell) an issue that falls solely along the lines of conservative vs liberal political ideology.
* = The irony here are that the ones insulting the Wisconsin Supreme Court are by and large those who side with McAdams. Their thrust seems to be that with a majority of politically conservative justices, the court will rule in McAdams' favor, not on the basis of legal merits, but on ideology. I'd like to think better of the court. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
-
You can try to paint me into a political corner, but you are failing miserably.
I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.
-
Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.
You are absolutely wrong. "Both sides do it", "both sides are the same" is simply incorrect, a cop out, and justification for the bad, tribal behavior of one side.
A professor, whether liberal, conservative, or politically agnostic attacking and IDing a student on a public blog, after being repeatedly warned about such behavior? Gone.
Sorry, that is the difference between the two sides.
-
Also the hallmark of the Jesuit system is they take people how to think about issues not what they should think. I think MU really needs to take an introspective look at itself and examine if it has gone to far in the direction of the latter at the expense of the former.
This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.
-
* = The irony here are that the ones insulting the Wisconsin Supreme Court are by and large those who side with McAdams. Their thrust seems to be that with a majority of politically conservative justices, the court will rule in McAdams' favor, not on the basis of legal merits, but on ideology. I'd like to think better of the court. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
So if they agree with you, they're good judges acting on the merits of the case and if they disagree they're hacks. Funny stuff.
-
I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.
I have defended Marquette when it fired people on "the other side." That trumps whatever hypothetical point you are trying to make. So you can take your "self awareness" argument and shove it up your behind.
-
#FreeMcAdams
Those who agree are in the RIGHT.
My alma mater messed up. The courts shall say it is so.
Rah rah team!
#sad
-
So if they agree with you, they're good judges acting on the merits of the case and if they disagree they're hacks. Funny stuff.
Yeah, that's nothing close to what I wrote.
Well done.
-
Yeah, that's nothing close to what I wrote.
Well done.
Sure, but is a lot easier to win an argument if you can first create an easily destroyed strawman.
-
You are absolutely wrong. "Both sides do it", "both sides are the same" is simply incorrect, a cop out, and justification for the bad, tribal behavior of one side.
A professor, whether liberal, conservative, or politically agnostic attacking and IDing a student on a public blog, after being repeatedly warned about such behavior? Gone.
Sorry, that is the difference between the two sides.
Sorry, T, but that's what YOU want this ALL to be about. Others see it being about MULTIPLE things that may be in conflict with one another. I think the other side readily acknowledges that what you think this is all about is part of what it's about but not all. That's why it's in the courts.
-
I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.
So you posed a hypothetical, you didn't like that it didn't work out as you hoped, so now essentially you are calling all of us liars. Not the strongest argument.
Especially given that most of us that support the MU firing, believe that the student (Abate) did not handle the situation properly, believe that her supervisors did not handle reprimanding/correcting her properly on how to operate her class, believe that the faculty handling the student (JD) mishandled the situation. All that is just background from the fact at hand.
McAdams named and attacked a student (Abate) in an online forum, knowing that there was a strong chance that the student (Abate) would be harassed by his blog followers. That is a violation of his responsibilities as a professor, for which he had been reprimanded and warned in the past. In my opinion, it is also a violation of FERPA, which protects students from the unauthorized release of personal information.
Had he simply posted the same blog without naming Abate, there would be no issue here. He cannot claim that he should not have been aware of the harm this would cause the student (Abate), because he intentionally left out the undergraduates name to protect him. That means he was aware that the blog posting could bring harm to the people involved. He chose to put Abate at risk for harm, and not the other student.
What your pretty terrible article forgets to mention, is that his contract also states that revocation of tenure decisions will be decided by a panel of MU faculty, whose recommendation will be sent to the president of the University. No one forced him to enter into a contract accepting this method of review in tenure revocation decisions. It is the MU faculty panel that decides what is a "legitimate" expression of personal or academic freedom.
-
This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.
I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think. The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.
-
I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think. The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.
I don't think that is what she did though. She didn't think his example was a good one.
Regardless, she handled it wrong as well. That doesn't excuse McAdams' actions though.
-
I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think. The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.
First, I'm on the record saying Abbate did not handle this properly. But...
I'm not sure she told him "what to think." She really told him two things.
1. He should consider how students would feel if they were told they were not allowed the same rights as another person, simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or sex. That they would likely be hurt/offended. That is teaching him "how" to think, not "what" to think.
2. That racist/bigoted/hateful speech will not be allowed in her classroom. Again, that is not teaching him "what" to think. It is just establishing rules for the classroom that are consistent with established MU rules.
Where she clearly errors is in shutting down his discussion on the topic. That is an error of an inexperienced instructor, which is why as graduate students, as part of their curriculum, they are forced to teach so that they can obtain feedback and instruction on that aspect of their career. I don't think this error though tells him "what" to think.
-
I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think. The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.
Did she? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the issue was what she believed ought to be discussed in the classroom, not what his personal views were. She was wrong either way, but there's a difference nonetheless.
(I double-checked. I'm not mistaken.)
Regardless, McAdams wasn't fired for what he thought. As has been said repeatedly, he could have written nearly the exact same blog post omitting Abbate's name, gotten his point across just as effectively, and nothing would have come of it.
The fact he chose not only to include her name, but hyperlinked to her contact information, indicates a level of vindictiveness and wilful flaunting of the administration's previous admonitions to him. That's why he's out of work, not because of what he thought.
-
I have defended Marquette when it fired people on "the other side." That trumps whatever hypothetical point you are trying to make. So you can take your "self awareness" argument and shove it up your behind.
LOL. You tepidly and briefly acknowledged that MU had the right to fire a teacher who had her students paint a mural on an MU building to honor a convicted cop murderer. My guess is that Guerrero and his side wouldn't have much of a problem with MU firing a teacher who had his student paint a mural on campus to honor David Duke. Comparing either to the McAdams case would be silly.
Regarding shoving self awareness up one's rectum, since you still can't locate yours I suggest that might be a good place to look.
-
LOL. You tepidly and briefly acknowledged that MU had the right to fire a teacher who had her students paint a mural on an MU building to honor a convicted cop murderer. My guess is that Guerrero and his side wouldn't have much of a problem with MU firing a teacher who had his student paint a mural on campus to honor David Duke. Comparing either to the McAdams case would be silly.
And here's where those defending McAdams on the basis of academic freedom are exposed as frauds.
They admittedly have no problem with the university firing certain faculty members for certain expressions, academic freedom be darned. They just take issue when that fired faculty member is simpatico to their political ideologies.
-
So you posed a hypothetical, you didn't like that it didn't work out as you hoped, so now essentially you are calling all of us liars. Not the strongest argument.
Not calling you or anyone else "liars". I'm sure you think that if my hypothetical were fact you would damning the MSM and praising Fox for its reporting, damning the liberal circuit court judge while celebrating that the conservative would right his wrong, etc., etc., etc. That is, however, pretty hard for me to imagine.
-
And here's where those defending McAdams on the basis of academic freedom are exposed as frauds.
They admittedly have no problem with the university firing certain faculty members for certain expressions, academic freedom be darned. They just take issue when that fired faculty member is simpatico to their political ideologies.
So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.
-
LOL. You tepidly and briefly acknowledged that MU had the right to fire a teacher who had her students paint a mural on an MU building to honor a convicted cop murderer.
I did not simply "acknowledge that MU had the right to fire her." I said "Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened. Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense."
Really this entire effort from you has been quite poor.
-
So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.
Like most freedoms, "academic freedom" is hardly absolute. And that includes for tenured professors.
-
First, I'm on the record saying Abbate did not handle this properly. But...
I'm not sure she told him "what to think." She really told him two things.
1. He should consider how students would feel if they were told they were not allowed the same rights as another person, simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or sex. That they would likely be hurt/offended. That is teaching him "how" to think, not "what" to think.
2. That racist/bigoted/hateful speech will not be allowed in her classroom. Again, that is not teaching him "what" to think. It is just establishing rules for the classroom that are consistent with established MU rules.
Where she clearly errors is in shutting down his discussion on the topic. That is an error of an inexperienced instructor, which is why as graduate students, as part of their curriculum, they are forced to teach so that they can obtain feedback and instruction on that aspect of their career. I don't think this error though tells him "what" to think.
While that may be true as it relates to what she told the student after class, during class, by shutting down the discussion, she was telling all the students in the class what to think.
And if I'm not mistaken, the issue of whether expressing one's religious beliefs is bigoted/hate speech is before the US Supremes, with a decision expected in a few months.
(I double-checked. I'm not mistaken.)
Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university?
-
While that may be true as it relates to what she told the student after class, during class, by shutting down the discussion, she was telling all the students in the class what to think.
And if I'm not mistaken, the issue of whether expressing one's religious beliefs is bigoted/hate speech is before the US Supremes, with a decision expected in a few months.
(I double-checked. I'm not mistaken.)
Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university?
Professors have a right in a classroom setting to determine if a certain subject is relevant to the topic at hand.
-
Sorry, T, but that's what YOU want this ALL to be about. Others see it being about MULTIPLE things that may be in conflict with one another. I think the other side readily acknowledges that what you think this is all about is part of what it's about but not all. That's why it's in the courts.
Fair enough
-
Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university?
No idea. Did not intend on suggesting that.
Most universities though do have rules that the classroom should be a place safe from threatening, offensive or harrassing speech. Abbate in this instance said that racist/bigotted and homophobic speech could be offensive and would not be tolerated. That statement was actually not made in class, rather after class as the student pushed the issue.
I disagree that shutting down a discussion, because it was a bad example for that particular topic, is telling the students "what to think." She was in the wrong, nonetheless.
-
So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.
Another dumb strawman?
I believe in academic freedom. I also believe academic freedom has reasonable limits. Just like everyone here, including you (see: your mural examples).
And just like American Association of University Professors.
That's why arguing this as a case of academic freedom is such a farce. Those on McAdams' don't truly believe any faculty member can express themselves in any manner without recourse. They just think McAdams can express himself in this particular manner without recourse.
-
No idea. Did not intend on suggesting that.
Most universities though do have rules that the classroom should be a place safe from threatening, offensive or harrassing speech. Abbate in this instance said that racist/bigotted and homophobic speech could be offensive and would not be tolerated. That statement was actually not made in class, rather after class as the student pushed the issue.
I disagree that shutting down a discussion, because it was a bad example for that particular topic, is telling the students "what to think." She was in the wrong, nonetheless.
Thanks.
For the record then, and I'm asking because I'm not sure exactly what Abbate said in class v. what she told the student after, when did she tell the student he couldn't express his disagreement with same-sex marriage in her class? And if after class, what exactly did she say to the student and the class while in class?
-
First, I'm on the record saying Abbate did not handle this properly. But...
I'm not sure she told him "what to think." She really told him two things.
1. He should consider how students would feel if they were told they were not allowed the same rights as another person, simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or sex. That they would likely be hurt/offended. That is teaching him "how" to think, not "what" to think.
2. That racist/bigoted/hateful speech will not be allowed in her classroom. Again, that is not teaching him "what" to think. It is just establishing rules for the classroom that are consistent with established MU rules.
Where she clearly errors is in shutting down his discussion on the topic. That is an error of an inexperienced instructor, which is why as graduate students, as part of their curriculum, they are forced to teach so that they can obtain feedback and instruction on that aspect of their career. I don't think this error though tells him "what" to think.
This is false.
-
Sooo glad this thread keeps popping up.
Can we lock it until the WiSC renders their decision, so we can all rehash why it's the worst/best decision in the history of mankind?
-
I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?
I'm trying to figure out if the argument is that McAdams did nothing wrong or if the punishment did not match the crime.
-
Sooo glad this thread keeps popping up.
Can we lock it until the WiSC renders their decision, so we can all rehash why it's the worst/best decision in the history of mankind?
It is your board. If you think this topic is inappropriate for the Superbar, I'll disagree with you, but won't start any new threads for the time being.
-
Out of curiosity, does anyone think that no one was a bad actor in this whole scenario, like anyone is 100% a victim? I'm pretty sure everyone is a bad actor it's just a question of how significant of a bad actor you were.
-
This is false.
It most certainly is not, most curricula require that students TA or in liberal arts disciplines teach a course as part of their education. It is often a requirement of their graduate degree. So my statement was certainly factual.
As part of the Marquette Philosophy PhD, it is not a requirement, but is highly recommended as part of their expected career development.
If your point on it being "false," is that it is not always required at all departments, then you are misinterpreting my statement and putting words in my mouth that were not stated. I never said "always" and I never implied it either.
The Abbate problem is the exact reason why many programs require/mandate teaching/TA'ing, which is factual, and what I said.
-
I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?
I'm trying to figure out if the argument is that McAdams did nothing wrong or if the punishment did not match the crime.
I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.
-
Out of curiosity, does anyone think that no one was a bad actor in this whole scenario, like anyone is 100% a victim? I'm pretty sure everyone is a bad actor it's just a question of how significant of a bad actor you were.
Pretty sure most think just about everyone involved was a bad actor in this case. Just one of them committed a fireable offense.
-
I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?
I'm not in the "free McAdams" crowd but I do not think his conduct was appropriate.
-
I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.
This makes way to much sense.
-
I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.
Isn't this an admission of wrongdoing by McAdams?
And, if so, how does one credibly argue that he should have been suspended AND his actions are protected by academic freedom?
-
Isn't this an admission of wrongdoing by McAdams?
And, if so, how does one credibly argue that he should have been suspended AND his actions are protected by academic freedom?
Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.
-
Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.
But that's not my question.
My question is that if you and other "Team McAdams" posters think he ought to have been suspended, then how can you also argue that academic freedom protects him from being punished for his actions?
Seems either he's protected or he isn't, and the level of discipline is irrelevant.
-
If MU loses the case, Lovell should resign... or be forced out, right?
-
If MU loses the case, Lovell should resign... or be forced out, right?
No. Not even close. Do you have any idea how often universities get sued? If presidents stepped down every time the university lost a lawsuit the average turnover for the job would be a month.
-
Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.
Do you know what Lovell offered? He requested a formal apology to Abbate, and to sign a document indicating that he will not name students in his blog post in the future.
He refused, so he was fired.
Lovell's offer was more generous than the committees recommendation. McAdams would not accept any responsibility.
That was the problem and why he had to be fired. Even after a student received death threats because of his actions, he couldn't see how he did wrong, and wouldn't agree to not do something like that again in the future. That put students at risk, McAdams then had to be fired.
-
But that's not my question.
My question is that if you and other "Team McAdams" posters think he ought to have been suspended, then how can you also argue that academic freedom protects him from being punished for his actions?
Seems either he's protected or he isn't, and the level of discipline is irrelevant.
Academic freedom protects him from being fired not disciplined.
-
Do you know what Lovell offered? He requested a formal apology to Abbate, and to sign a document indicating that he will not name students in his blog post in the future.
He refused, so he was fired.
Lovell's offer was more generous than the committees recommendation. McAdams would not accept any responsibility.
That was the problem and why he had to be fired. Even after a student received death threats because of his actions, he couldn't see how he did wrong, and wouldn't agree to not do something like that again in the future. That put students at risk, McAdams then had to be fired.
That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.
-
That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.
Bullsh*t. There were plenty of avenues available for McAdams to advocate on the students behalf. Hell there are formal procedures in place to do just that. He could have gone to MU's Title IX officer if he saw fit.
The problem is he didn't choose those procedures. He ignored them and did it his way. THAT is why he was rightfully fired.
-
This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.
The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling the student what to think.
Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.
-
That limits his speech. I can't speak for him but he probably refused since he considered her an instructor. If he agreed to those terms every TA could abuse an undergrad and he could not defend them if they asked for his help.
It does not limit his free speech. He can't disclose personal information on any student. That is a violation of FERPA. It doesn't matter that the student also has activities that could be considered employment with the University.
If he believes he should be able to release personal information on students, and will refuse to sign a document attesting to the fact that he will not disclose personal information. Then he has to be fired. Period.
You just criticized Lovell for not going with the recommendation of the committee. I pointed out to you that he offered McAdams a better offer, which he refused.
-
The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling the student what to think.
Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.
Well those aren't the facts. That is par for the course with you around here.
-
No. Not even close. Do you have any idea how often universities get sued? If presidents stepped down every time the university lost a lawsuit the average turnover for the job would be a month.
If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...
-
If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...
There is zero chance he resigns or is fired over this. Believe me. He had the backing of the BOT when he did this and likely had an opinion from counsel as well.
-
It does not limit his free speech. He can't disclose personal information on any student. That is a violation of FERPA. It doesn't matter that the student also has activities that could be considered employment with the University.
If he believes he should be able to release personal information on students, and will refuse to sign a document attesting to the fact that he will not disclose personal information. Then he has to be fired. Period.
You just criticized Lovell for not going with the recommendation of the committee. I pointed out to you that he offered McAdams a better offer, which he refused.
He did not disclose any personal information. He referenced a link to an article on her blog which had no personal information contained in it but for her name. I guess going to ones blog is a violation of FERPA.
-
There is zero chance he resigns or is fired over this. Believe me. He had the backing of the BOT when he did this and likely had an opinion from counsel as well.
How can anyone in his constituency continue to support such a poor leader? Again, hypothetical here... if Marquette loses the battle in court.
-
He did not disclose any personal information. He referenced a link to an article on her blog which had no personal information contained in it but for her name. I guess going to ones blog is a violation of FERPA.
Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA. Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA.
-
How can anyone in his constituency continue to support such a poor leader? Again, hypothetical here... if Marquette loses the battle in court.
Because this is only a small part of what he has done. It must be properly weighed against everything else he has done both positively and negatively.
Honestly I think he did the right thing no matter how the case turns out. It wouldn't be his fault that the Court is full of political hacks.
-
Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA. Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA.
So just by googling you violate FERPA?
http://www.marquette.edu/phil/CurrentGraduateStudents.shtml
-
Academic freedom protects him from being fired not disciplined.
Nope.
The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure developed by the American Association of University Professors (and widely used as the definition of "academic freedom") states:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline ..."
-
Because this is only a small part of what he has done. It must be properly weighed against everything else he has done both positively and negatively.
Honestly I think he did the right thing no matter how the case turns out. It wouldn't be his fault that the Court is full of political hacks.
No accountability? Relying way too much on a narrative that implies people/organizations are actively persecuted in the legal system for political bias and not their own actions.
-
Nope.
The Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure developed by the American Association of University Professors (and widely used as the definition of "academic freedom") states:
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline ..."
I guess he should not be disciplined as well.
-
For you lawyer types out there: Any chance this gets taken to the Supreme Court? My guess is that there is more than one MU law professor who would be willing to work on this case pro bono just for the CV enhancement.
-
If a university loses a law suit wherein the President of that University almost single handedly is responsible for the exhausted resources... on a public stage... regarding all faculty members... for an entire state...
Actually...to this point, the law has said McAdams is responsible for the wasted resources...
-
The Professor called out a TA who he had no jurisdiction over; who is a paid employee who also happens to have student status , for attacking a student telling the student what to think.
Sorry the facts don't comport with your view of life. That is par for the course around here though.
Oh Gus, I await your in-person reporting on their body language while the discussion was going on.
-
No accountability? Relying way too much on a narrative that implies people/organizations are actively persecuted in the legal system for political bias and not their own actions.
Of course he has accountability. I think he has been a very good president regardless of how this case turns out.
-
Yeah I'm not sure how he violated FERPA. Simply disclosing that she is a student or that she is a TA doesn't violate FERPA.
Agreed, but this case isn't that simple. And I'm certainly not saying this is a FERPA violation, just that it may be argued to be one. I am far from a FERPA legal expert, I just know that we are advised to not release any information, not even confirm a student is enrolled in our class to their parents, until we confirm they've authorized the release of info to their parents.
In this case, it is questionable whether he violated FERPA, and it may be a legal reach, but since he:
1. Disclosed the student's name and role as the instructor in the course.
2. Discussed the student's name in the context of an ongoing dispute, and corrective action regarding teaching methods, as part of their education/degree plan.
He could have violated FERPA. Simply releasing a name of an instructor would not be a violation. But, disclosing the students name in the context of an ongoing corrective action/investigation, where it is conceivable that the disclosure could cause harm to the student can be a violation of FERPA.
Directory information gets a pass in 99.9% of cases as directory information does not contain, things like disciplinary measures, and is unlikely to cause harm. Neither of those matters is true here, so release of directory information in the context of their responsibilities/corrective action may be a FERPA violation.
In this particular instance though I was not talking about this case, rather his unwillingness to sign a document agreeing to not name students in his blog in the future.
-
For you lawyer types out there: Any chance this gets taken to the Supreme Court? My guess is that there is more than one MU law professor who would be willing to work on this case pro bono just for the CV enhancement.
I assume you mean U.S. Supreme Court.
Not likely, at least not as the case currently is pleaded. As far as I can tell, McAdams is making a basic breach of contract complaint without any federal/constitutional claims.
I could be wrong, but that's my reading.
-
I guess he should not be disciplined as well.
Except ... the same AAUP puts limits on academic freedom that exclude speech or writings that, among other things, ridicule, threaten or harass students or colleagues.
Hard to argue that McAdams at the very least didn't ridicule Abbate.
-
I have a remedial question here (trying hard to avoid the game thread):
What does McAdam's blog have to do with "academic" freedom? In order to be relevant to academic freedom, shouldn't it have something to do with one's teaching or research? If a professor strips to his skivvies, stands in front of Raynor, and screams all of the names of students that don't subscribe to his politics, is "academic freedom" a fair defense to university discipline?
-
Actually...to this point, the law has said McAdams is responsible for the wasted resources...
Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.
If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.
Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?
-
Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.
If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.
Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?
Wow! Heads I win Tails you lose.
-
I have a remedial question here (trying hard to avoid the game thread):
What does McAdam's blog have to do with "academic" freedom? In order to be relevant to academic freedom, shouldn't it have something to do with one's teaching or research? If a professor strips to his skivvies, stands in front of Raynor, and screams all of the names of students that don't subscribe to his politics, is "academic freedom" a fair defense to university discipline?
This trial will be the only news Marquette will get this spring that rises to the national level.
-
Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.
If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.
Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?
Looks like it's:
(https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/3977081.jpg)
-
Riiiiiiight, for the hypothetical response that Marquette loses the case, McAdams will be responsible for the legal fees. Good point.
If McAdams loses he is on the hook for the legal fees.... Yes, right. I hadn't considered.
Please add something to the conversation. Seriously. Your brain?
Yeah, over the top. The point being, we should be intilectually honest when breaking this down. I said before that people weave their own lives into this story. Lots of hypotheticals until the case is heard and final decision rendered.
-
I have a remedial question here (trying hard to avoid the game thread):
What does McAdam's blog have to do with "academic" freedom? In order to be relevant to academic freedom, shouldn't it have something to do with one's teaching or research? If a professor strips to his skivvies, stands in front of Raynor, and screams all of the names of students that don't subscribe to his politics, is "academic freedom" a fair defense to university discipline?
Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.
Nobody here would argue that academic freedom would allow McAdams to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or make threats against the president of the United States.
In this case, the issue is whether academic freedom grants McAdams the right to ridicule a student by name. Marquette has decided it does not. McAdams disagrees. And his supporters believe the judicial system should tell Marquette how to discipline its employees.
-
Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.
Got it, thanks for the clarification.
-
Academic freedom essentially says a faculty member is free to speak out as a citizen on any issue without fear of retribution, so it goes beyond just the classroom or a professor's limited area of academic expertise/research. What McAdams writes in his blog fits into that.
Except ... academic freedom has its limits, and they're spelled out (albeit vaguely) by the American Association of University Professors. Those limits say things like plagiarism, academic fraud, threats, ridicule, etc., are not covered by academic freedom.
Nobody here would argue that academic freedom would allow McAdams to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or make threats against the president of the United States.
In this case, the issue is whether academic freedom grants McAdams the right to ridicule a student by name. Marquette has decided it does not. McAdams disagrees. And his supporters believe the judicial system should tell Marquette how to discipline its employees.
McAdams is contesting that Marquette is contractually obligated to honor the same rights extended by the Constitution regarding the 1st amendment and academic freedom. His case is based on Marquette over reaching its authority and violating its own bylaws to punish/fire him.
-
MU has created a talking points web page regarding the McAdams case:
http://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/
-
...and the he said she said goes on.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com
-
Amicus briefs filed on behalf of McAdams:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):
"If criticism of the ideas proposed, and pedagogical choices made, by fellow instructors in this context are not protected by Marquette’s
seemingly robust promises of academic freedom, then it is not clear what is."
https://www.thefire.org/fires-amicus-brief-in-mcadams-v-marquette-november-29-2017/
American Association of University Professors (AAUP):
"In requiring Dr. McAdams to renounce his blog post as a condition of reinstatement, the administration used the threat of dismissal to force Dr. McAdams to choose between adhering to his protected political views and regaining his tenured position."
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/McAdams_Marquette_Feb2018.pdf
National Association of Scholars (NAS):
Go ahead and read Footnote 2
http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-02-28-filed-nas-amicus.pdf
-
There are about 10 amicus briefs in the case now. Oral argument is set for April 19. I’d guess that the Justices’ questioning will be a pretty good indicator of where things are at.
McAdams already thinks he has the case won, as his lawyers are throwing this weird pre-party thing a couple days before the argument: http://www.will-law.org/event-preview-landmark-mcadams-v-marquette-lawsuit/.
-
I would like to say that I'd be surprised to watch the right celebrate when "activist judges" decide to insert themselves in a contract disagreement between an individual and a private employer, but I've seen enough hypocrisy over the last two years that this won't even register.
-
McAdams already thinks he has the case won, as his lawyers are throwing this weird pre-party thing a couple days before the argument: http://www.will-law.org/event-preview-landmark-mcadams-v-marquette-lawsuit/.
"Proceeds support McAdams case expenses." is it more of a fund raiser for the legal fees? Serious question... if he wins, will MU be on the hook for those?
-
#FreeMcAdams
Shame on my university for their behavior here!
-
#FreeMcAdams
Shame on my university for their behavior here!
He is free. Mission accomplished!
-
FreeChicos2018
-
"Proceeds support McAdams case expenses." is it more of a fund raiser for the legal fees? Serious question... if he wins, will MU be on the hook for those?
MU won’t have to pay any attorney fees for McAdams. Both sides are responsible for their own lawyers. But McAdams’ lawyers are mostly retired guys who file lawsuits that they themselves want to pursue, and I’m sure aren’t charging him.
-
I would like to say that I'd be surprised to watch the right celebrate when "activist judges" decide to insert themselves in a contract disagreement between an individual and a private employer, but I've seen enough hypocrisy over the last two years that this won't even register.
so...they're following the constitution and rule of law when you agree with them and they're activist judges when they go against your belief system?
fair enough ?-(
-
so...they're following the constitution and rule of law when you agree with them and they're activist judges when they go against your belief system?
fair enough ?-(
I guess irony is lost on you.
-
Both sides make these claims about activist judges. Move on.
-
Amicus briefs filed on behalf of McAdams:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):
"If criticism of the ideas proposed, and pedagogical choices made, by fellow instructors in this context are not protected by Marquette’s
seemingly robust promises of academic freedom, then it is not clear what is."
https://www.thefire.org/fires-amicus-brief-in-mcadams-v-marquette-november-29-2017/
American Association of University Professors (AAUP):
"In requiring Dr. McAdams to renounce his blog post as a condition of reinstatement, the administration used the threat of dismissal to force Dr. McAdams to choose between adhering to his protected political views and regaining his tenured position."
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/McAdams_Marquette_Feb2018.pdf
National Association of Scholars (NAS):
Go ahead and read Footnote 2
http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-02-28-filed-nas-amicus.pdf
Interesting stuff, Eldon - contradicts some of what's been posted here.
-
Interesting stuff, Eldon - contradicts some of what's been posted here.
Not sure where any of that contradicts things that were posted on here.
Pretty much the same talking points over and over and over again.
-
Not sure where any of that contradicts things that were posted on here.
Pretty much the same talking points over and over and over again.
i'll help-"some" is the key word here
-
FreeChicos2018
He rose from the dead already.
-
Well, MU and McAdams made Laura Ingraham’s show tonight. I only caught the tail end, but the show was centered on free speech. I bring this up only to point out MU was shown on her show, not to turn this into a political discussion by the few who like to get a thread shut down. The campus looked nice. 😬
-
Article in the Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/15/john-mcadams-marquette-professor-says-firing-shows/
-
I believe opening arguments are scheduled for Thursday 4/19. Looking forward to this finally playing out.
-
I believe opening arguments are scheduled for Thursday 4/19. Looking forward to this finally playing out.
You can listen to the arguments live via this website: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm
-
You can listen to the arguments live via this website: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm
Or watch it here:
http://www.wiseye.org/
-
Pretty straightforward questioning by the Justices today. Unless the Chief Justice has a surprise up her sleeve, the math doesn’t look very good for alma mater.
-
Pretty straightforward questioning by the Justices today. Unless the Chief Justice has a surprise up her sleeve, the math doesn’t look very good for alma mater.
Yep. The hypocrites will win this one.
-
My alma mater eff’d up and must pay!
#FreeMcAdams
-
So, if McAdams wins what does Marquette do going forward?
I would not be surprised if staff members are prohibited from having blogs in the future. Write employment contracts so that merely having a blog is grounds for termination, and you give the university cover from future lawsuits such as this.
Facebook, twitter, and other social media could be restricted, too.
-
So, if McAdams wins what does Marquette do going forward?
I would not be surprised if staff members are prohibited from having blogs in the future. Write employment contracts so that merely having a blog is grounds for termination, and you give the university cover from future lawsuits such as this.
Facebook, twitter, and other social media could be restricted, too.
Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure. They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand.
-
Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure. They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand.
Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
-
Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
You say this till it's a liberal professor then it's indoctrination etc. let's not pretend that the majority of you are on mcadams side because of academic freedom. It's about viewpoints he holds and was trying to stand up for.
-
Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure. They won't be making any anti-blogging rules or social media restrictions; that'd be a fool's errand.
Selective on what grounds? That sounds ripe for discrimination and more lawsuits.
Whatever policy changes are made need to be black and white.
-
You say this till it's a liberal professor then it's indoctrination etc. let's not pretend that the majority of you are on mcadams side because of academic freedom. It's about viewpoints he holds and was trying to stand up for.
^This. But some are completely unembarrassed by extreme hypocrisy.
-
I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult. I'm a conservative. Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady. I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being. I would tell that to her face. But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure. In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation. But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.
My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained. If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground. And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action.
I applaud the university however this turns out. If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it. But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.
-
^This. But some are completely unembarrassed by extreme hypocrisy.
Yep.
-
I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult. I'm a conservative. Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady. I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being. I would tell that to her face. But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure. In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation. But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.
My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained. If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground. And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action.
I applaud the university however this turns out. If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it. But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.
I 100% agree with your conclusion. (Correction however...Abate wasn't a Professor.)
-
Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
It really hasn't caused that much time or money. And it won't even if they have to pay McAdams. Stop being so melodramatic.
Marquette did the right thing.
-
Marquette might just be more selective about whom they give tenure.
That might be hard to do. It is a faculty oriented process. While it still does require approvals from up above, they can't really veto too many recommendations without pretty good reasons.
-
Sadly, I don't think the administration would understand why the court ruled in McAdams favor. I want Lovell to step down, his actions are a disgrace. He personally put MU on the offensive and has wasted an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to pose as an illegitimate moral authority. Professors and students must be allowed to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
None of which led to McAdams' dismissal.
-
None of which led to McAdams' dismissal.
A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.
-
A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.
That is literally not true.
-
A single blog post criticizing and naming an instructor of record (and linking to her personal blog) literally led to all of this.
Wrong again.
Maybe third time's the charm?
-
That is literally not true.
Explain otherwise. Something else was the catalyst for his suspension and dismissal?
Remember, I literally used the word literally in the literal sense. The initial post literally was the first occurrence that led to yesterday's opening arguments.
-
Explain otherwise. Something else was the catalyst for his suspension and dismissal?
Yeah. The fact that he was warned previously about doing the very thing he ended up doing.
That's like a cop pulling over an alleged mass murderer for speeding, calling for a back up SWAT team, and saying "wow, all that for a suspected speeder?" (Admittedly hyperbolic.)
The fact is that the Supreme Court would be WAY overstepping its bounds by ruling in favor of McAdams and have already done so by accepting the case on direct appeal. This is a private employment agreement that should no way be judged on any free speech grounds.
-
I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult. I'm a conservative. Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady. I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being. I would tell that to her face. But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure. In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation. But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.
My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained. If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground. And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action.
I applaud the university however this turns out. If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it. But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.
Amen glow! With you 100%
-
I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.
I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.
-
I 100% agree with your conclusion. (Correction however...Abate wasn't a Professor.)
Technically instructor. Thanks for the correction.
-
I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.
I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.
I've mentioned this before Coleman. 40 years ago John was a mentor of mine. Not sure what's happened over the decades but he's not the same guy I once knew well.
-
I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.
I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.
The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway. The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.
-
(Question .. did they fire McAdams? I thought the committee said he was suspended until he apologizes, promises to not do it again, etc, and McAdams has refused that conclusion.)
-
(Question .. did they fire McAdams? I thought the committee said he was suspended until he apologizes, promises to not do it again, etc, and McAdams has refused that conclusion.)
Think he's on permanent unpaid suspension. Think, not sure.
-
I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult. I'm a conservative. Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady. I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being. I would tell that to her face. But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure. In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation. But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.
My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained. If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground. And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action.
I applaud the university however this turns out. If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it. But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.
I thought he said he would not quit and would return to teaching at MU if he won. I may be wrong on that.
-
I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult. I'm a conservative. ...
I applaud the university however this turns out. If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it. But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.
You might be conservative, glow, but you are rational. We could use more of that. Tip of the hat.
-
The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway. The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.
I disagree about the final result being "bad PR."
On the contrary, I would argue that MU made a calculated decision to take this to court (knowing that they would lose) for good PR. MU will come out of this as having 'stood up to a bully'.
"We stood up to a bully" probably sits better with more alums and future students than "we place a high value on academic tenure."
-
The fact is that the Supreme Court would be WAY overstepping its bounds by ruling in favor of McAdams and have already done so by accepting the case on direct appeal. This is a private employment agreement that should no way be judged on any free speech grounds.
Except for the fact that MU is contractually obligated (allegedly, on its own account) to uphold the same rights extended to McAdam by the 1st amendment. So you're making my case that MU should uphold it's end of the contract agreement. Or, alter the contract to exclude employees the same rights. Just put it on paper and sign it one way or the other.
-
I disagree about the final result being "bad PR."
On the contrary, I would argue that MU made a calculated decision to take this to court (knowing that they would lose) for good PR. MU will come out of this as having 'stood up to a bully'.
"We stood up to a bully" probably sits better with more alums and future students than "we place a high value on academic tenure."
I agree. It's important to note the sources of nearly all the "bad PR." Those aren't sources most alumni - and certainly not reasonable ones - give a crap about.
-
I agree. It's important to note the sources of nearly all the "bad PR." Those aren't sources most alumni - and certainly not reasonable ones - give a crap about.
I'm an alum. I consider myself reasonable. I give a crap about the WSJ and the AAUP. I value tenure (and fulfilling contractual duties generally) very highly. But I realize that I am in the minority.
-
Except for the fact that MU is contractually obligated (allegedly, on its own account) to uphold the same rights extended to McAdam by the 1st amendment.
Within boundaries that are outlined within its faculty rules which McAdams agreed to.
-
The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway. The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.
Pick a better hill, would'ya?!?
-
just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school. today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP. these incidents can have a "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate.
i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well. i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president. i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell. many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
-
I'm an alum. I consider myself reasonable. I give a crap about the WSJ and the AAUP. I value tenure (and fulfilling contractual duties generally) very highly. But I realize that I am in the minority.
+1! To those at MU he is an ass hole, bully, a royal pain in the ass; but he has a right to be all those things. For us in the minority he is a voice the University wants to censor.
-
just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school. today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP. these incidents can have a "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate.
i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well. i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president. i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell. many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
Interesting. I see it very much the opposite, especially on the former. You do remember Pilarz, yes? The reality is that there may have only been 10 qualified Jesuits to choose from whereas there were hundreds of qualified and 'fully Catholic' lay candidates, Mike among them.
Look, I have several MU policy differences with Lovell. I'm certainly not going to enumerate them here on scoop. But I generally think he has a constructive vision for the university here in the 21st century and I especially applaud him for what is a far more aggressive agenda. Honestly, I'd selfishly hate to work for him because I'd be sure to burn out quickly. But from a constituent standpoint, that's great. MU is run more like a business today focused on 'creating shareholder value' than at any point in my memory if that sense.
-
just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school. today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP. these incidents can have a "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate.
i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well. i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president. i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell. many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?
-
+1! To those at MU he is an ass hole, bully, a royal pain in the ass; but he has a right to be all those things. For us in the minority he is a voice the University wants to censor.
Therein lies the argument. Many, myself included, would say, 'No, he does not.'
-
Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?
You raise an interesting point. Many have argued that MU has strayed far away from Catholic underpinnings, probably similar to other Jesuit institutions. I don't subscribe to that view and prefer the more 'open door' policy MU has embraced but it does result in an interesting discussion.
-
You raise an interesting point. Many have argued that MU has strayed far away from Catholic underpinnings, probably similar to other Jesuit institutions. I don't subscribe to that view and prefer the more 'open door' policy MU has embraced but it does result in an interesting discussion.
Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.
I love MU, but it pains me that this is where we are.
-
Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?
Huh. Where does that happen?
-
Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.
Nope. They're down because MU wants them down. And enrollment is up considerably btw. As to the rest of your point, we each are entitled to our opinion. Culturally MU isn't much different than it was 30 years ago except that it's far more 'Naperville' (meaning affluent).
-
Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.
OH NO!!! NOT THE GAYS!!! THEY WILL PROBABALY TRY TO RECRUIT MY POOR LITTLE CHILD TO THEIR SIDE!!!
-
just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school. today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP. these incidents can have a "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate.
i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well. i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president. i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell. many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
I don’t want that either but this is nowhere near that ballpark.
-
OH NO!!! NOT THE GAYS!!! THEY WILL PROBABALY TRY TO RECRUIT MY POOR LITTLE CHILD TO THEIR SIDE!!!
There's an interesting minority out there Sultan that has always thought MU ought to be the Catholic Wheaton College.
It's funny. I have great respect for Wheaton generally. Our son had given it some modest early consideration and we live very close. Then I read the Pledge and was deeply troubled by some components. Won't enumerate but DEEPLY troubled. We made a decision as a family that it wasn't an option.
-
Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?
You are just sayin' stupid things, now.
There is no MU policy "that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room".
-
You might be conservative, glow, but you are rational. We could use more of that. Tip of the hat.
I disagree with him often, but he always has sensible reasons for his beliefs.
-
2 of 3 Catholics support gay marriage. (http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/)
I'm guessing if you removed Catholics over the age of about 55, that number would be 90%.
Only a sliver of parents sending their kids to a "Catholic" college are going to care about its stance on gay issues.
-
I disagree with him often, but he always has sensible reasons for his beliefs.
Thank you. Nice of you to say.
-
Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.
BTW Fordham...
https://www.fordham.edu/info/20913/lgbt_resources
https://www.fordham.edu/info/20915/lgbt_and_ally_network_of_support
I can think of nothing more anti-Jesuit than ignoring a segment of society that is part of your community.
-
There's an interesting minority out there Sultan that has always thought MU ought to be the Catholic Wheaton College.
It's funny. I have great respect for Wheaton generally. Our son had given it some modest early consideration and we live very close. Then I read the Pledge and was deeply troubled by some components. Won't enumerate but DEEPLY troubled. We made a decision as a family that it wasn't an option.
A "Catholic Wheaton College" would struggle to actually be Catholic IMO.
-
A "Catholic Wheaton College" would struggle to actually be Catholic IMO.
I know, but you get my point.
-
Nope. They're down because MU wants them down. And enrollment is up considerably btw. As to the rest of your point, we each are entitled to our opinion. Culturally MU isn't much different than it was 30 years ago except that it's far more 'Naperville' (meaning affluent).
Well it is certainly different when I attended 50 years ago. I can remember Allan Ginsberg reading his very salacious poems at a lecture and the Q&A back and forth on how it challenged conventional attitudes of the day were just exhilarating. Was he or anyone else silenced because it may offend some group on campus? No. Many Jesuits at the time would let us debate how the changes of Vatican II would affect the church and if it ran contrary to current Catholic teaching at the time no one was silenced. No I do not want MU to make every student or faculty member to take an oath to be faithful to Catholic teaching; but from where I am sitting it seems MU requires faculty and students to be faithful to the values of the LGBTQ community or they are called insolent or are fired because they criticized someone with whom they disagree.
-
Well it is certainly different when I attended 50 years ago. I can remember Allan Ginsberg reading his very salacious poems at a lecture and the Q&A back and forth on how it challenged conventional attitudes of the day were just exhilarating. Was he or anyone else silenced because it may offend some group on campus? No. Many Jesuits at the time would let us debate how the changes of Vatican II would affect the church and if it ran contrary to current Catholic teaching at the time no one was silenced. No I do not want MU to make every student or faculty member to take an oath to be faithful to Catholic teaching; but from where I am sitting it seems MU requires faculty and students to be faithful to the values of the LGBTQ community or they are called insolent or are fired because they criticized someone with whom they disagree.
Well, 69, it ain't 1968 anymore and we don't say the Mass in Latin either brother. :)
And I'd disagree with your notion. I'll remind you about the swift Sunday morning response to the mural or the Arts/Sciences prospective Dean situation. Both fully appropriate in my mind.
-
Well it is certainly different when I attended 50 years ago. I can remember Allan Ginsberg reading his very salacious poems at a lecture and the Q&A back and forth on how it challenged conventional attitudes of the day were just exhilarating. Was he or anyone else silenced because it may offend some group on campus? No. Many Jesuits at the time would let us debate how the changes of Vatican II would affect the church and if it ran contrary to current Catholic teaching at the time no one was silenced. No I do not want MU to make every student or faculty member to take an oath to be faithful to Catholic teaching; but from where I am sitting it seems MU requires faculty and students to be faithful to the values of the LGBTQ community or they are called insolent or are fired because they criticized someone with whom they disagree.
What is your proof for the bolded?
-
Well it is certainly different when I attended 50 years ago. I can remember Allan Ginsberg reading his very salacious poems at a lecture and the Q&A back and forth on how it challenged conventional attitudes of the day were just exhilarating. Was he or anyone else silenced because it may offend some group on campus? No. Many Jesuits at the time would let us debate how the changes of Vatican II would affect the church and if it ran contrary to current Catholic teaching at the time no one was silenced. No I do not want MU to make every student or faculty member to take an oath to be faithful to Catholic teaching; but from where I am sitting it seems MU requires faculty and students to be faithful to the values of the LGBTQ community or they are called insolent or are fired because they criticized someone with whom they disagree.
What are the values of the LGBTQ community of which you speak?
-
Thank you. Nice of you to say.
You tend to lean toward the reasonable end of the scale; sadly, I lean toward the reactive side too often.
-
One of several reasons my 17 year is highly interested in Marquette is especially because it's not in-your-face Catholic and the openness of discussion. She also likes the idea of attending mass in a place like Joan of Arc Chapel.
-
What I don't like is the continued bashing of our institutions. We seem to pick and choose based our party or ideology, but accept it as long as our side wins. That is not good.
Court decisions often go 5-4, 6-3. That doesn't mean the minority is wrong nor does it mean they are right, it only means their legal arguments were not held at the same level as the others. The same goes for the majority. There can be strong, viable legal argument supporting both sides of a position. Legality is often not black or white and when I see comments that a judgment breaks one way that a person didn't like and therefore that means the court(s) are idiotic, or lack any moral authority is plain wrong. Sometimes we have to take a step back from our bias and look at the broader picture.
-
Interesting. I see it very much the opposite, especially on the former. You do remember Pilarz, yes? The reality is that there may have only been 10 qualified Jesuits to choose from whereas there were hundreds of qualified and 'fully Catholic' lay candidates, Mike among them.
Look, I have several MU policy differences with Lovell. I'm certainly not going to enumerate them here on scoop. But I generally think he has a constructive vision for the university here in the 21st century and I especially applaud him for what is a far more aggressive agenda. Honestly, I'd selfishly hate to work for him because I'd be sure to burn out quickly. But from a constituent standpoint, that's great. MU is run more like a business today focused on 'creating shareholder value' than at any point in my memory if that sense.
ahhh yes, fr pilarz...nuf said.
ok, i guess what troubles me is the tendency(read knee jerk) toward political correctness at a time when i believe it has worn out it's welcome. i appreciate your perspective glow, but if there were 10 qualified jesuits, i'm a traditionalist in that respect and that's enough choices for me
-
Y in da world wood MU want applications ta bee down, hey?
-
Y in da world wood MU want applications ta bee down, hey?
My guess is the Office of Admissions would rather use their staff and resources to recruit more qualified candidates, versus what some colleges do, offer up a bunch a fee waivers and try to get every Joe or Jane with a 1.9 GPA to apply, so they can deny them, thus "increasing" their rejection rate, which in turns lowers their acceptance rate, which some idiots think this makes their college more prestigious.
-
My guess is the Office of Admissions would rather use their staff and resources to recruit more qualified candidates, versus what some colleges do, offer up a bunch a fee waivers and try to get every Joe or Jane with a 1.9 GPA to apply, so they can deny them, thus "increasing" their rejection rate, which in turns lowers their acceptance rate, which some idiots think this makes their college more prestigious.
Unfortunately, many of those idiots hire people and whether we like it or not, prestige and acceptance rates do matter to some people. Dismissing it out of hand isn't helpful either, nor is calling them idiots.
No one can deny some of the most prestigious schools in the country have very low acceptance rates. I'm not going to argue correlation vs causation, but only pointing out this truism. The highest acceptance rate of an Ivy League school is 14%, most are below 10% as examples. In a brief stint in New York (about 2 years of my career), I couldn't believe how many departments only hired from a list of about 30 schools because they felt the schools already weeded out the average in the selection process from high school. That elitism is one of the reasons I left and headed back to the midwest.
Don't discount that it is real and happens with regularity.
The more important thing to note is the average acceptance rate of all schools is about 51%. Kids can get great educations at any of these schools, and that counts most for me. On the job front, it doesn't always work out that way when being hired in the first or second job, especially by firms that look at where the degree came from and nothing else.
-
2 of 3 Catholics support gay marriage. (http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/)
I'm guessing if you removed Catholics over the age of about 55, that number would be 90%.
Only a sliver of parents sending their kids to a "Catholic" college are going to care about its stance on gay issues.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of those 2-in-3 Catholics attend mass on a weekly basis as opposed to twice a year.
-
Y in da world wood MU want applications ta bee down, hey?
Asked and answered many times on the board. Do your research. Thanks.
-
Unfortunately, many of those idiots hire people and whether we like it or not, prestige and acceptance rates do matter to some people. Dismissing it out of hand isn't helpful either, nor is calling them idiots.
No one can deny some of the most prestigious schools in the country have very low acceptance rates. I'm not going to argue correlation vs causation, but only pointing out this truism. The highest acceptance rate of an Ivy League school is 14%, most are below 10% as examples. In a brief stint in New York (about 2 years of my career), I couldn't believe how many departments only hired from a list of about 30 schools because they felt the schools already weeded out the average in the selection process from high school. That elitism is one of the reasons I left and headed back to the midwest.
Don't discount that it is real and happens with regularity.
The more important thing to note is the average acceptance rate of all schools is about 51%. Kids can get great educations at any of these schools, and that counts most for me. On the job front, it doesn't always work out that way when being hired in the first or second job, especially by firms that look at where the degree came from and nothing else.
This has been discussed at length in other threads. Do note that the carefully evaluated new strategy has resulted in two of the largest classes in MU history, both of which reflect a stronger incoming academic profile, all during a time when Marquette's traditional recruiting territory is producing an ever diminishing pool. So they got that going for 'em, which is nice.
-
I'd be curious to know what percentage of those 2-in-3 Catholics attend mass on a weekly basis as opposed to twice a year.
My wife and I are two. Just need the one to oppose.
-
Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.
I love MU, but it pains me that this is where we are.
Ha. That’s definitely not why admissions are down. For what it’s worth, me and several friends from the East Coast chose Marquette over other schools precisely because it had an open and non-conservative bent - typical of the Jesuits, who educated us out east. I got the sense that choice was similar to many classmates.
-
I'd be curious to know what percentage of those 2-in-3 Catholics attend mass on a weekly basis as opposed to twice a year.
Which would prove what exactly? That the church — through action or inaction entirely of its own making — has driven away many, many Catholics who might otherwise attend?
-
Ha. That’s definitely not why admissions are down. For what it’s worth, me and several friends from the East Coast chose Marquette over other schools precisely because it had an open and non-conservative bent - typical of the Jesuits, who educated us out east. I got the sense that choice was similar to many classmates.
Just to correct, they're up measurably. And the goal is 2500 in a few short years. Not sure I agree with that objective but that's where they're going. :)
-
I'd be curious to know what percentage of those 2-in-3 Catholics attend mass on a weekly basis as opposed to twice a year.
I'd be curious how many of those Catholics that go every week actually live their day to day lives in Jesus' footsteps vs the ones that don't place as much emphasis on mass.
-
Which would prove what exactly? That the church — through action or inaction entirely of its own making — has driven away many, many Catholics who might otherwise attend?
True, Vatican II did drive many Catholics away.
-
This has been discussed at length in other threads. Do note that the carefully evaluated new strategy has resulted in two of the largest classes in MU history, both of which reflect a stronger incoming academic profile, all during a time when Marquette's traditional recruiting territory is producing an ever diminishing pool. So they got that going for 'em, which is nice.
I have no problems with the current strategy, but I am pointing out to those that pretend acceptance rates don't mean anything to some people that they are wrong. They mean quite a bit to some people, and less to others. We cannot blindly pretend acceptance rates are just another metric when there are people in power of hiring positions that it matters. That doesn't mean I don't support MU's policy or I would have pushed her not to apply if I thought it would hurt her. Ultimately she will receive a quality education, and that is what I care about most.
-
True, Vatican II did drive many Catholics away.
If only that were true. The church would be in a much better place.
-
If only that were true. The church would be in a much better place.
It was true for a segment of Catholics. The older folks like me, and especially my parents and grandparents, it was a cultural shock to the system.
A tug of war ensued. Change is hard for human beings. I still remember all the nuns in their habits, they were instantly recognizable and demanded respect. We would get smacked on the knuckles with a ruler. He he. Hurt like the dickens, but you only had to learn that lesson once. When I see nuns today, it still sometimes throws me for a loop because habit is gone. Doesn't change who they are, but I liked the uniform and the respect that came with it. Minor stuff, I know.
The Vatican II tug of war:
https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162650803/sisters-and-vatican-ii-a-generational-tug-of-war
Vatican II, 50 years later still deeply divided
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/10/06/vatican_ii_roman_catholic_church_still_deeply_divided_50_years_after_historic_reforms.html
-
I have no problems with the current strategy, but I am pointing out to those that pretend acceptance rates don't mean anything to some people that they are wrong. They mean quite a bit to some people, and less to others. We cannot blindly pretend acceptance rates are just another metric when there are people in power of hiring positions that it matters. That doesn't mean I don't support MU's policy or I would have pushed her not to apply if I thought it would hurt her. Ultimately she will receive a quality education, and that is what I care about most.
Please tell me the names of the companies who give a university's acceptance rate significant weight when they are looking at resumes.
It is my experience that most hiring managers look at the success that graduates of a particular university (and to drill down further, graduates of a particular program at a particular university) have out in the workplace. The average hiring manager or HR recruiter has no idea what any particular school's acceptance rate is.
If I found out that someone in my organization passed on an otherwise highly-qualified candidate because of their alma mater's acceptance rate, I would have to have a serious conversation with them.
-
It was true for a segment of Catholics. The older folks like me, and especially my parents and grandparents, it was a cultural shock to the system.
A tug of war ensued. Change is hard for human beings. I still remember all the nuns in their habits, they were instantly recognizable and demanded respect. We would get smacked on the knuckles with a ruler. He he. Hurt like the dickens, but you only had to learn that lesson once. When I see nuns today, it still sometimes throws me for a loop because habit is gone. Doesn't change who they are, but I liked the uniform and the respect that came with it. Minor stuff, I know.
The Vatican II tug of war:
https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162650803/sisters-and-vatican-ii-a-generational-tug-of-war
Vatican II, 50 years later still deeply divided
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/10/06/vatican_ii_roman_catholic_church_still_deeply_divided_50_years_after_historic_reforms.html
It throws you for a loop to see nuns not in habits? In 2018?
-
It was true for a segment of Catholics. The older folks like me, and especially my parents and grandparents, it was a cultural shock to the system.
A tug of war ensued. Change is hard for human beings. I still remember all the nuns in their habits, they were instantly recognizable and demanded respect. We would get smacked on the knuckles with a ruler. He he. Hurt like the dickens, but you only had to learn that lesson once. When I see nuns today, it still sometimes throws me for a loop because habit is gone. Doesn't change who they are, but I liked the uniform and the respect that came with it. Minor stuff, I know.
The Vatican II tug of war:
https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162650803/sisters-and-vatican-ii-a-generational-tug-of-war
Vatican II, 50 years later still deeply divided
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/10/06/vatican_ii_roman_catholic_church_still_deeply_divided_50_years_after_historic_reforms.html
But did older generations of Catholics actually stop going to church because of the Vatican II changes? There's a significant distinction between the churchgoing impact of Vatican II and, say, the rampant abuse cover-ups. A distinction obvious to most of us except, perhaps, this jutaw person, who chose to trot out the well-worn "good Catholics versus bad Catholics" line of illogic, which is as hypocritical as it is hollowly self-righteous.
-
But did older generations of Catholics actually stop going to church because of the Vatican II changes? There's a significant distinction between the churchgoing impact of Vatican II and, say, the rampant abuse cover-ups. A distinction obvious to most of us except, perhaps, this jutaw person, who chose to trot out the well-worn "good Catholics versus bad Catholics" line of illogic, which is as hypocritical as it is hollowly self-righteous.
My distinction was practicing Catholic vs. non-practicing Catholic, not good vs. bad.
Personally, my stance on the matter is more progressive than our progressive pope's and closer to the 2-in-3 Catholics that support gay marriage, with some caveats.
-
I don't believe that churches need to abandon their beliefs. I do believe in equal protection under the law. So, civil unions. Yes, there is conflict between religion and secular. What else is new?
-
What does, “support gay marriage” mean?
-
I'd be curious how many of those Catholics that go every week actually live their day to day lives in Jesus' footsteps vs the ones that don't place as much emphasis on mass.
excellent point bags-blaming NOT going to church or leaving the church on people, who are merely the vehicle of Christ's word and a way of living, is weak. i like to believe in what is right first, second and third... for those who use the priest scandal, celibacy, women priests, gay marriage, etc as an excuse to "leave the church", they are in the wrong pew to begin with. church, the physical part is like any other business. if you like what they have to offer and they can help you get what you want out of life, help you cope, whatever, you are going to patronize it.
-
excellent point bags-blaming NOT going to church or leaving the church on people, who are merely the vehicle of Christ's word and a way of living, is weak. i like to believe in what is right first, second and third... for those who use the priest scandal, celibacy, women priests, gay marriage, etc as an excuse to "leave the church", they are in the wrong pew to begin with.
The priest scandal, a systematic cover-up of illegal activities, is a lot different than the other three you mention, which are matters of belief.
-
My wife and I have started going to a Congregationalist church after both being raised Catholic. I was back home for Palm Sunday and went to a Catholic mass with my parents. I looked around and there was literally one couple that appeared to be under the age of 40. There was a lot of small children with their parents but as far as I could tell only two people from my generation had come there by choice (and that's assuming that one wasn't going to appease the other).
While different, religion at its core is a form of education. Religion exists to teach people about God's love and plan for us. A key tenant of education is meeting the students where they are at. And right now, the Catholic Church is failing tremendously at that.
To be clear, I don't think the church needs to abandon its teachings or rituals in order to cater to a younger generation. But I do think they need to reexamine them and determine what teachings/rituals come from God's Catholic Church and what teachings/rituals come from man's catholic church. I still consider myself a Catholic because I believe in God's Catholic Church but in my opinion man's catholic church has strayed so far from it that it no longer is a place where I can worship and feel sustained or even good.
Things like married priests, female priests, gay marriage, recognizing interfaith marriages, reexamining the role of divorce (in situations where abuse is present), birth control. These are all questions that I think come from man's church that the Catholic Church should consider reexamining IMHO.
-
I still remember all the nuns in their habits, they were instantly recognizable and demanded respect. We would get smacked on the knuckles with a ruler. He he. Hurt like the dickens, but you only had to learn that lesson once. When I see nuns today, it still sometimes throws me for a loop because habit is gone. Doesn't change who they are, but I liked the uniform and the respect that came with it. Minor stuff, I
"Respect" isn't derived from a uniform or the possibility that the person wearing it might hit you. You're confusing respect with fear.
-
My wife and I have started going to a Congregationalist church after both being raised Catholic. I was back home for Palm Sunday and went to a Catholic mass with my parents. I looked around and there was literally one couple that appeared to be under the age of 40. There was a lot of small children with their parents but as far as I could tell only two people from my generation had come there by choice (and that's assuming that one wasn't going to appease the other).
While different, religion at its core is a form of education. Religion exists to teach people about God's love and plan for us. A key tenant of education is meeting the students where they are at. And right now, the Catholic Church is failing tremendously at that.
To be clear, I don't think the church needs to abandon its teachings or rituals in order to cater to a younger generation. But I do think they need to reexamine them and determine what teachings/rituals come from God's Catholic Church and what teachings/rituals come from man's catholic church. I still consider myself a Catholic because I believe in God's Catholic Church but in my opinion man's catholic church has strayed so far from it that it no longer is a place where I can worship and feel sustained or even good.
Things like married priests, female priests, gay marriage, recognizing interfaith marriages, reexamining the role of divorce (in situations where abuse is present), birth control. These are all questions that I think come from man's church that the Catholic Church should consider reexamining IMHO.
Why stop there with making the Catholic Church a bastion of liberalism? Why not "re-examine" it's stance on abortion? Or celebrating men becoming women, or vice versa?
In one breath you talk about the church not needing to abandon its teaching or rituals. In the next breath, they need to "re-examine" what comes from God's Church vs man's. Re-examine being a euphemism for abandoning beliefs and values of Catholic teaching. So why not just cut through your crap that spew out and say Catholicism isn't nearly socially liberal enough to YOUR liking?
And visit Catholic churches more often before you broadly generalize the make-up of congregations.
-
The priest scandal, a systematic cover-up of illegal activities, is a lot different than the other three you mention, which are matters of belief.
yes, but i wasn't referring to the priest scandal as a belief. i was lumping it in with the others("matters of belief") as one of the many "excuses" for some to leave the church.
-
yes, but i wasn't referring to the priest scandal as a belief. i was lumping it in with the others("matters of belief") as one of the many "excuses" for some to leave the church.
But you said they were in the "wrong pew to begin with." Now I agree with you on items like female priests. If you want to see females capably lead a church service, there are plenty of denominations where that happens. (And as a non-Catholic, I generally *prefer* most female pastors to male ones.)
But the priest cover up isn't a belief matter. If you are a believing Catholic, being disgusted at the priest scandal isn't about being in the "wrong pew," it's being disgusted at how the Church leadership dealt with a matter of law.
-
A decade+ ago, I was at a mass with my brother-in-law's family at a Lutheran church.
The mass we were at, the kids performed the service. Half the mass was a puppet show!
Right there, I knew all those people were going to hell. ( / would be joining me in hell.)
Full church, though.
-
But you said they were in the "wrong pew to begin with." Now I agree with you on items like female priests. If you want to see females capably lead a church service, there are plenty of denominations where that happens. (And as a non-Catholic, I generally *prefer* most female pastors to male ones.)
But the priest cover up isn't a belief matter. If you are a believing Catholic, being disgusted at the priest scandal isn't about being in the "wrong pew," it's being disgusted at how the Church leadership dealt with a matter of law.
i don't know why i am wasting my time arguing with you on this, but i think you are splitting hairs with me on this. one more time-yes i know and agree with you that the priest cover-up is/was not a "belief" thingy. i was merely lumping that in...ok, the "pew" thing threw ya off...ok, i get rid of it, fine. i guess i had a pretty good point until i added the "pew" thing... ?-( now i know how chicos felt
-
Why stop there with making the Catholic Church a bastion of liberalism? Why not "re-examine" it's stance on abortion? Or celebrating men becoming women, or vice versa?
In one breath you talk about the church not needing to abandon its teaching or rituals. In the next breath, they need to "re-examine" what comes from God's Church vs man's. Re-examine being a euphemism for abandoning beliefs and values of Catholic teaching. So why not just cut through your crap that spew out and say Catholicism isn't nearly socially liberal enough to YOUR liking?
And visit Catholic churches more often before you broadly generalize the make-up of congregations.
What I mean by reexamining what comes from God and what comes from Man I mean going back to the scripture and seeing what was actually taught by Jesus. I don't think the church should rethink its position on abortion because I can point to dozens of verses that supports the value of life. But things like gay marriage, divorce, female priests, unmarried priests, etc, don't have the same scriptural backing. They come from man made traditions. I also don't know how most of what I said is socially liberal. Gay marriage I get but unmarried priests and divorce? I don't think those have a political affiliation.
As for overgeneralizing I suppose I am a bit guilty of that. Though I was raised Catholic and went to dozens of different congregations growing up and still occasionally go to Catholic mass and have noticed the same thing at every one of them except on campus churches like Gesu. I have also had similar conversations with dozens of Catholic friends have noticed the same trend. I can also point to any one of several research articles that shows that millennials and igens go to Catholic church in fewer and fewer numbers every year.
-
Why stop there with making the Catholic Church a bastion of liberalism? Why not "re-examine" it's stance on abortion? Or celebrating men becoming women, or vice versa?
In one breath you talk about the church not needing to abandon its teaching or rituals. In the next breath, they need to "re-examine" what comes from God's Church vs man's. Re-examine being a euphemism for abandoning beliefs and values of Catholic teaching. So why not just cut through your crap that spew out and say Catholicism isn't nearly socially liberal enough to YOUR liking?
And visit Catholic churches more often before you broadly generalize the make-up of congregations.
How much do you honestly know about the history of the church? Priests were once allowed to marry, the celibacy thing is entirely a man made rule because of the corruption it caused. His point stands despite how upset it made you that over the years the Catholic Church has had a lot of things added because man wanted them to rather than what were the actual teachings. Those things aren't aging well and the church should re-examine them rather than maintaining the Pope's from the Middle Ages and such had their hearts in the right place
-
i don't know why i am wasting my time arguing with you on this, but i think you are splitting hairs with me on this. one more time-yes i know and agree with you that the priest cover-up is/was not a "belief" thingy. i was merely lumping that in...ok, the "pew" thing threw ya off...ok, i get rid of it, fine. i guess i had a pretty good point until i added the "pew" thing... ?-( now i know how chicos felt
*feels.
It would help if you actually used proper sentence structure and didn't simply write in a stream of consciousness.
-
*feels.
It would help if you actually used proper sentence structure and didn't simply write in a stream of consciousness.
#bansultan
-
*feels.
It would help if you actually used proper sentence structure and didn't simply write in a stream of consciousness.
no! past tense-he hasn't HAD to (thank God) argue with you for quite some time and now i know why. his banning was really a blessing for him to keep maintain sanity and grow old with his family.
you can't find anything more to argue about with my previous premise, so you have to start a new argument?? i apologize to all the people out there who truly suffer with OCD and i am not minimizing it in any way, but you got some form of it that's screaming for help dude
-
no! past tense-he hasn't HAD to (thank God) argue with you for quite some time and now i know why. his banning was really a blessing for him to keep maintain sanity and grow old with his family.
you can't find anything more to argue about with my previous premise, so you have to start a new argument?? i apologize to all the people out there who truly suffer with OCD and i am not minimizing it in any way, but you got some form of it that's screaming for help dude
What I am saying is that it is oftentimes hard to understand what you are trying to say because you don't use proper punctuation and your thoughts tend to meander all over the place.
-
It throws you for a loop to see nuns not in habits? In 2018?
Ha ha. That's why I said sometimes. And yes, sometimes it does. For all my informative years at Catholic school the nuns were in their habits, that becomes ingrained in you for 12 years of schooling. At times my wife and I will be at a church function and we may be volunteering or whatever and Sister Fill in the Blank introduces herself and the sister part does, at times, throw me for a loop. In the back of my mind, oh you are a nun.
Some habits die hard (pun intended). :D
-
Please tell me the names of the companies who give a university's acceptance rate significant weight when they are looking at resumes.
It is my experience that most hiring managers look at the success that graduates of a particular university (and to drill down further, graduates of a particular program at a particular university) have out in the workplace. The average hiring manager or HR recruiter has no idea what any particular school's acceptance rate is.
If I found out that someone in my organization passed on an otherwise highly-qualified candidate because of their alma mater's acceptance rate, I would have to have a serious conversation with them.
I believe you may have misunderstood me. What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain. They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were. Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish. I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process. Went something like this
Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place. I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions
-
I believe you may have misunderstood me. What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain. They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were. Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish. I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process. Went something like this
Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place. I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions
If a company stupidly limits its search to graduates of 30 or so schools, Marquette is not going to be in the mix anyway. It is a good school, but not close to being top 30 overall based on any sort of arbitrary cutoff.
-
I have tried to educate myself on this case over the weekend. One name that continues to pop up is someone named Paul Quirk. He graduated from MU in '71 and is a professor of Political Science at University of British Columbia. He has responded to at least 5 MU Tribune articles and/or McAdams blog.
I suspect a friend of McAdams?
https://marquettewire.org/3946597/tribune/viewpoints/editorials/editorial-announcement-to-suspend-mcadams-disappoints-and-shows-universitys-weakness/
"I congratulate the editors on the severe, fully warranted criticism of the University’s conduct. But the editorial misses the essential point: the Faculty Review Committee, contrary to the University’s hope, rejected dismissal as an appropriate punishment. It recognized that McAdams had a right to blog critically about Ms. Abbate. The University is attempting to override that recommendation, bringing dismissal back in through McAdams’ predictable refusal to apologize.
As a matter of the University’s contractual obligations to respect McAdam’s academic freedom, the committee’s judgment on this point is not a close call. And it is disappointing that the editors fail to recognize this fact. They call McAdams’ language “cruel” and “harsh,” without quoting any of it. In fact, he accused Abbate of using what he called a standard liberal tactic of shutting down debate. That’s as harsh as it got. He said nothing remotely unusual for journalistic or internet debate on a controversial academic-political issue. But leaving aside what he actually said, do the editors really want a university where debate is never “harsh,” and where an administrator’s or a committee’s finding of “harshness” in debate will result in punishment, even dismissal?
The result of the University’s decision will be another year or two of deservedly bad publicity as a lawsuit proceeds, followed by McAdams’ reinstatement with back pay, and I suspect, punitive damages. The University’s weakness has been in failing to recognize, and explain to McAdams’ critics, its obligation to protect academic freedom."
Paul Quirk MU A&S 1971
Professor of Political Science
Univerity of British Columbia
-
I am shocked that a professor feels that the Faculty Review Committee's recommendation should serve as the final say in the matter.
-
I am shocked that a professor feels that the Faculty Review Committee's recommendation should serve as the final say in the matter.
Right, just like when interest groups submit amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases. They're looking out for their interests, and should be taken with a large grain of Wisconsin rock salt.
-
I believe you may have misunderstood me. What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain. They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were. Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish. I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process. Went something like this
Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place. I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions
Warriors Chick and Dad both make valid points here. I'm an East coast guy and can absolutely verify that the elitism Dad is referring to is alive and well. Thankfully, that elitism is mostly limited to the Investment Banking and broader financial services industry, and even they have cast a wider net in recent years which is a good thing. I'm not aware of any HR dept that uses acceptance rates as a viable metric to evaluate entry level hires. As Chick says, most companies develop a good rapport with local universities they've had positive hiring experiences from in the past and if that institution continues to produce productive grads with good attitudes they'll continue to hire from them. At my company, entry level candidates with degrees from Ivy and other prestigious national university and national liberal arts schools definitely warrant a second look, as I suspect these grads do anywhere, but my company hires from a very broad range of colleges and graduates of every class of institution have performed both very well and not so well so I agree with Chick that acceptance rates don't matter in the larger employment context.
That said, I've stated many times on here that MU's current admissions policy is not sensible, and acceptance rates do matter a lot in terms of the perception of an institution from prospective students and their parents. I've had this discussion with several folks in the admissions office very very recently and they've acknowledged that they went too far last year when they accepted 89% of all applicants. Interestingly, what's caused them to re-evaluate their strategy isn't the significant pushback they received from alumni...... they fully expected and were prepared for that, but what caught them off guard was the substantial negative feedback they received from current students, many of whom have younger siblings or friends who will be high school seniors in the fall, and are questioning MU's extremely high acceptance rate. They've also received a lot of negative feedback about this issue from high school guidance counselors across the board, but especially from the greater Chicagoland area who are telling them it's a turn off to many prospective students.
To me this is both troubling and re-assuring. Troubling because they clearly don't care what we alums think, but re-assuring in the sense that they at least care what their prospective consumers think about it. When folks are shelling out the kind of $$$ MU is asking them to to attend there, this issue matters whether MU officials want it to or not. Unfortunately it's going to take 2 or 3 more admissions cycles to correct this, but at least they're trying to get to a place where all constituencies are happy, and they can do this in a way where they're not soliciting applications from students who are likely to be denied. On the positive front, applications for Fall 2018 were up almost 25% this year, so that will help.
-
I have tried to educate myself on this case over the weekend. One name that continues to pop up is someone named Paul Quirk. He graduated from MU in '71 and is a professor of Political Science at University of British Columbia. He has responded to at least 5 MU Tribune articles and/or McAdams blog.
I suspect a friend of McAdams?
https://marquettewire.org/3946597/tribune/viewpoints/editorials/editorial-announcement-to-suspend-mcadams-disappoints-and-shows-universitys-weakness/
"I congratulate the editors on the severe, fully warranted criticism of the University’s conduct. But the editorial misses the essential point: the Faculty Review Committee, contrary to the University’s hope, rejected dismissal as an appropriate punishment. It recognized that McAdams had a right to blog critically about Ms. Abbate. The University is attempting to override that recommendation, bringing dismissal back in through McAdams’ predictable refusal to apologize.
As a matter of the University’s contractual obligations to respect McAdam’s academic freedom, the committee’s judgment on this point is not a close call. And it is disappointing that the editors fail to recognize this fact. They call McAdams’ language “cruel” and “harsh,” without quoting any of it. In fact, he accused Abbate of using what he called a standard liberal tactic of shutting down debate. That’s as harsh as it got. He said nothing remotely unusual for journalistic or internet debate on a controversial academic-political issue. But leaving aside what he actually said, do the editors really want a university where debate is never “harsh,” and where an administrator’s or a committee’s finding of “harshness” in debate will result in punishment, even dismissal?
The result of the University’s decision will be another year or two of deservedly bad publicity as a lawsuit proceeds, followed by McAdams’ reinstatement with back pay, and I suspect, punitive damages. The University’s weakness has been in failing to recognize, and explain to McAdams’ critics, its obligation to protect academic freedom."
Paul Quirk MU A&S 1971
Professor of Political Science
Univerity of British Columbia
That's a bit weird. The Faculty Committee found that "McAdams violated his core obligations as a tenured professor when he used his blog needlessly and recklessly to harm Abbate".
They then recommended alternative punishments (including an apology) that McAdams refused to honor. The only alternative at that point was to terminate.
Quirk's statements here misrepresent the facts.
-
That's a bit weird. The Faculty Committee found that "McAdams violated his core obligations as a tenured professor when he used his blog needlessly and recklessly to harm Abbate".
They then recommended alternative punishments (including an apology) that McAdams refused to honor. The only alternative at that point was to terminate.
Quirk's statements here misrepresent the facts.
The Faculty Committee was a kangaroo court that consisted of faculty that had already publicly condemned McAdams before the committee had been formed. The committee did not seek an apology from McAdams, that demand came personally from President Lovell.
-
This thread took an interesting turn.
I consider myself a "practicing" Catholic. I don't attend mass every week, but I attend more weeks than I don't (2-3 per month). I belong to a great parish in Chicago. I hate labels, but I would say it is pretty middle of the road. Very traditional liturgy, fantastic choir, but a priest who is not afraid to speak truth to power, especially vis a vis our current government. Homilies often focus on the plight of immigrants, poor, etc. I don't view this as liberal, it is just good, traditional, Catholic social teaching. We all know the Church's stance on abortion and homosexuality. We don't need to hear it every week.
My personal position is that my personal religious views should not be a basis for law in a secular society. The rule of law should govern the public square. Thus, while I am personally opposed to abortion, I recognize it as the law of the land. My views don't count more than others in this country. While I respect the right of the Catholic church to not conduct gay marriage ceremonies, it upsets me when those within the Church think that they should be able to dictate policy based on their own personal beliefs. Live and let live. Gay people are not harming anyone.
Back to McAdams: I disagree with how Abbate quashed legitimate discussion in her class. She deserved to be reprimanded. But within proper channels. Vigilante blog justice towards a graduate student was wrong. McAdams is not a victim. MU acted properly.
-
The Faculty Committee was a kangaroo court that consisted of faculty that had already publicly condemned McAdams before the committee had been formed. The committee did not seek an apology from McAdams, that demand came personally from President Lovell.
The bolded is your opinion. The follow up is factually incorrect. I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams. The decision by the committee was unanimous.
The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate.
That is the central argument of the case. Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.
The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully.
-
The bolded is your opinion. The follow up is factually incorrect. I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams. The decision by the committee was unanimous.
The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate.
That is the central argument of the case. Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.
The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully.
What is the benefit to strip faculty of due process? The central argument is that McAdams has the protection of the 1st amendment which is not governed by a Faculty Committee.
-
My wife and I are two. Just need the one to oppose.
My wife and I attend weekly.
-
What is the benefit to strip faculty of due process? The central argument is that McAdams has the protection of the 1st amendment which is not governed by a Faculty Committee.
This is not about the 1st amendment.
-
This is not about the 1st amendment.
Only in the sense that MU violated its contract agreement with McAdams and went as far as to break its own bylaws to terminate him.
-
Only in the sense that MU violated its contract agreement with McAdams and went as far as to break its own bylaws to terminate him.
Well the contractural issue is why the court is hearing the case. How did they break their own bylaws?
-
The bolded is your opinion. The follow up is factually incorrect. I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams. The decision by the committee was unanimous.
The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate.
That is the central argument of the case. Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.
The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully.
How did he harm her?
-
Well the contractural issue is why the court is hearing the case. How did they break their own bylaws?
When McAdams was initially suspended. MU Faculty Handbook Section 307.03, basically all of section 1 was violated. MU did not specify the statute allegedly violated, the date of the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, and any of the supposed facts of the violation. MU steamrolled McAdams right off of campus and then formed the faculty committee in an attempt to (falsely) legitimize its actions.
http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php (http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php)
In all cases of nonrenewal, suspension, or termination for absolute or discretionary cause, except Section 307.02(1) and (3), death, and permanent, total disability, the appropriate appointing authority of the University shall notify the faculty member in writing of the University's action. The notice shall include:
(1) The statute allegedly violated; the date of the alleged violation; the location of the alleged violation; a sufficiently detailed description of the facts constituting the violation including the names of the witnesses against the faculty member.
(2) The nature of the University’s contemplated action, with a specification of the date or dates upon which such action is to become effective with respect to faculty status, duties, salary, and benefit entitlements, respectively.
(3) Such notice shall be personally delivered and service shall operate from date of such delivery; if in the exercise of reasonable diligence it is not possible to personally serve the faculty member, it may be served by certified mail addressed to the faculty member’s last known place of residence, and service shall operate from date of mailing.
-
When McAdams was initially suspended. MU Faculty Handbook Section 307.03, basically all of section 1 was violated. MU did not specify the statute allegedly violated, the date of the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, and any of the supposed facts of the violation. MU steamrolled McAdams right off of campus and then formed the faculty committee in an attempt to (falsely) legitimize its actions.
http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php (http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php)
In all cases of nonrenewal, suspension, or termination for absolute or discretionary cause, except Section 307.02(1) and (3), death, and permanent, total disability, the appropriate appointing authority of the University shall notify the faculty member in writing of the University's action. The notice shall include:
(1) The statute allegedly violated; the date of the alleged violation; the location of the alleged violation; a sufficiently detailed description of the facts constituting the violation including the names of the witnesses against the faculty member.
(2) The nature of the University’s contemplated action, with a specification of the date or dates upon which such action is to become effective with respect to faculty status, duties, salary, and benefit entitlements, respectively.
(3) Such notice shall be personally delivered and service shall operate from date of such delivery; if in the exercise of reasonable diligence it is not possible to personally serve the faculty member, it may be served by certified mail addressed to the faculty member’s last known place of residence, and service shall operate from date of mailing.
Those aren't Marquette's bylaws, which is a governance document. It's the faculty rules.
And Marquette claims they didn't violate the faculty rules. And your first paragraph is again full of opinion stated as fact. Which is per usual. So whatever...
-
Those aren't Marquette's bylaws, which is a governance document. It's the faculty rules.
And Marquette claims they didn't violate the faculty rules. And your first paragraph is again full of opinion stated as fact. Which is per usual. So whatever...
Bylaw: a rule made by a company or society to control the actions of its members.
Call me crazy but rules used to regulate, control (and in theory) protect its faculty members sure seem to fit the definition. The fact that the university did not follow those rules can be taken as you wish.
-
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. Marquette threw an unrepentant repeat bully who had been warned numerous times off campus. I would have slashed his tires too but that's just me.
Out.
-
Bylaw: a rule made by a company or society to control the actions of its members.
Call me crazy but rules used to regulate, control (and in theory) protect its faculty members sure seem to fit the definition. The fact that the university did not follow those rules can be taken as you wish.
Are you charging Professor McAdams for these posts? I am not sure it should be billable time.
-
Let's get this thread back on track. Arguments were heard by the court last Thursday. Does anything happen between now and when the court issues a ruling sometime in the early summer?
-
Bylaw: a rule made by a company or society to control the actions of its members.
Call me crazy but rules used to regulate, control (and in theory) protect its faculty members sure seem to fit the definition. The fact that the university did not follow those rules can be taken as you wish.
According to McAdams they didn’t follow the faculty rules. According to Marquette they did.
Oh and here are Marquette’s actual bylaws.
http://www.marquette.edu/ogc/policies/documents/PagesfromCertifiedArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws2013.pdf
Are you going to counter this with a dictionary definition as well?
-
Let's get this thread back on track. Arguments were heard by the court last Thursday. Does anything happen between now and when the court issues a ruling sometime in the early summer?
The thread was never off track.
-
The thread was never off track.
So you don't know... Anybody else?
-
Nothing is likely to happen publicly between now and a written opinion in June, except the two sides doing more PR spin.
-
How did he harm her?
Not my job to determine that. According to the contract that McAdams agreed to, the governing body to make such decisions was the Faculty Committee. They came to that conclusion, not me.
And since contractually, both parties agreed to such a committee making the decision, then it should be binding.
As I noted before, the court is trying to determine whether the Free Speech section of the contract supersedes the contractual agreement to let the Faculty Committee make the decision.
-
"Respect" isn't derived from a uniform or the possibility that the person wearing it might hit you. You're confusing respect with fear.
I was raised to respect the uniform. It's a military thing I guess, or maybe law enforcement roots. Didn't matter, police, fire, military, nun, milkman, UPS guy, service station gasser. That was my upbringing. That doesn't mean you respect the person, but the uniform you do. The person has to earn the respect.
Respect can be derived from a uniform, but is earned by the person usually. I believe what I said was they were instantly recognizable and the nuns I had demanded respect. In a separate sentence I spoke of the punishment they doled out, but that isn't why I feared them. They told you what the rules were, if you didn't follow them there was a punishment. I respected that because there was no ambiguity.
-
I was raised to respect the uniform. It's a military thing I guess, or maybe law enforcement roots. Didn't matter, police, fire, military, nun, milkman, UPS guy, service station gasser. That was my upbringing. That doesn't mean you respect the person, but the uniform you do. The person has to earn the respect.
Respect can be derived from a uniform, but is earned by the person usually. I believe what I said was they were instantly recognizable and the nuns I had demanded respect. In a separate sentence I spoke of the punishment they doled out, but that isn't why I feared them. They told you what the rules were, if you didn't follow them there was a punishment. I respected that because there was no ambiguity.
Studies show positive reinforcement is actually more effective than negative reinforcement.
-
Not my job to determine that. According to the contract that McAdams agreed to, the governing body to make such decisions was the Faculty Committee. They came to that conclusion, not me.
And since contractually, both parties agreed to such a committee making the decision, then it should be binding.
As I noted before, the court is trying to determine whether the Free Speech section of the contract supersedes the contractual agreement to let the Faculty Committee make the decision.
Is it focusing on the faculty committee portion or is it focusing on the section that determines how faculty address issues of student faculty? While I don't know the wording, I know the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc. In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly. That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public. The rest of it regarding his enabling of harrassment and whatnot is just additional layers to the issue.
-
Is it focusing on the faculty committee portion or is it focusing on the section that determines how faculty address issues of student faculty? While I don't know the wording, I know the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc. In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly. That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public. The rest of it regarding his enabling of harrassment and whatnot is just additional layers to the issue.
I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.
-
I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.
Which was not proper procedure according to Marquette. If he has a problem with the way a graduate student teaches a class, he should have gone to her advisor.
-
Which was not proper procedure according to Marquette. If he has a problem with the way a graduate student teaches a class, he should have gone to her advisor.
Because why?
-
Only in the sense that MU violated its contract agreement with McAdams and went as far as to break its own bylaws to terminate him.
the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc. In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly. That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public.
Because why?
For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!
-
For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!
Because that is not proper procedure dicated by MUScoop?
-
Because why?
Because that is what faculty are supposed to do with regard to graduate students. It is alluded to in the faculty report.
-
For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!
And to cite it incorrectly at that.
-
I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.
So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.
-
So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.
Using recordings obtained without the knowledge of the instructor as well.
-
Using recordings obtained without the knowledge of the instructor as well.
I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.
-
So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.
He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.
-
He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.
My understanding is that if he hadn't named said TA he would've been fine
-
He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.
The student has no such right. And McAdams had every right to blog about it without using the instructor's name.
No one is being censored.
-
I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.
I believe Wisconsin is a "one-party consent" state, wherein only one person in a recorded conversation needs to consent to it in order for it to be lawful.
-
I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.
Was the student a participant in the conversation, or was he recording someone else’s conversation? It’s legal to record a conversation if you’re a participant (in Wisconsin...and most states).
-
I believe Wisconsin is a "one-party consent" state, wherein only one person in a recorded conversation needs to consent to it in order for it to be lawful.
Correct.
-
My understanding is that if he hadn't named said TA he would've been fine
Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.
-
Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.
I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.
-
Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.
What privacy right. A student came to McAdams after he went through all the channels to address the situation that was not resolved from his perspective. McAdams just reported his story: who, what, where, when and when writing an opinion piece why.
-
I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.
She was the instructor of record.
-
I believe Wisconsin is a "one-party consent" state, wherein only one person in a recorded conversation needs to consent to it in order for it to be lawful.
Gotcha. For some reason I thought that it wasn't because at phonation we had a beep to indicate a recording
-
They told you what the rules were, if you didn't follow them there was a punishment. I respected that because there was no ambiguity.
Seriously???? In some countries they tell people (homosexuals and wives, eg.) quite unambiguously what the rules are and what the punishments are if you break them. I'm sure they're grateful for your respect.
-
I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.
Yes, Marquette puts the student part first when it comes to student-teachers.
To me, it feels like both "outing a student by name" and a "work issue."
-
What privacy right. A student came to McAdams after he went through all the channels to address the situation that was not resolved from his perspective. McAdams just reported his story: who, what, where, when and when writing an opinion piece why.
So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?
-
She was the instructor of record.
Yes, but TAs are students first and foremost.
-
So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?
Because the student is a student and not an instructor of record.
-
Because the student is a student and not an instructor of record.
Yes, but TAs are students first and foremost.
-
Yes, Marquette puts the student part first when it comes to student-teachers.
Yes, and Kentucky puts the student part first when it comes to student-athletes.
-
So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?
We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.
Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.
-
Gotcha. For some reason I thought that it wasn't because at phonation we had a beep to indicate a recording
It is a bit more complicated though. At least in the Law school (at Marquette), it is against University policy to record a lecture without the explicit permission of the instructor.
So, although it may not have violated state laws, it could be viewed as violating university policies.
Honestly not sure if the rules in the law school also apply to regular classes, or if an equivalent exists in regular MU classes.
Also, because copyrighted material is often covered in class, and proprietary ideas are discussed, the instructors are all allowed to disallow any recordings. My guess is Abate did not officially ban such recordings in her syllabus, I know other faculty that do.
-
We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.
Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.
abrasive much? no 69 isn't playing dumb. he is simply disagreeing
"based on what we all know...really? "a simple case of planned intimidation"?
and there you have it-all these pages of blah blah blah and we could've just cut to the chase?
-
abrasive much? no 69 isn't playing dumb. he is simply disagreeing
And we all know why he is disagreeing. And why you’re stepping in too.
-
And we all know why he is disagreeing. And why you’re stepping in too.
Simple, Eyn’a?
-
We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.
Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.
[/color]
Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".
-
[/color]
Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".
Good lord. He was given the option to drop the class. It wasn’t a threat.
-
BTW as I have said all along Abatte didn’t handle this well either. She was way too dismissive of the student’s initial complaint.
-
[/color]
Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".
I see you're deflecting. For the record, Abate made a poor assumption in class saying everyone agrees about gay marriage. She compounded that mistake with a weak defense, saying students could be offended. A debate could easily be held with some simple ground rules. An experienced professor shouldn't make these mistakes. That is why student-teachers are students first and foremost. They have to learn from these mistakes, even though they are the "instructor of record."
The university likely made mistakes in their interactions with the unnamed student. But neither their mistakes nor Abate's excuse McAdams's actions. We have to look at them in isolation.
-
Seriously???? In some countries they tell people (homosexuals and wives, eg.) quite unambiguously what the rules are and what the punishments are if you break them. I'm sure they're grateful for your respect.
That's quite the false equivalency. The nuns I had kept it a bit more simple. Show up on time, don't talk in class, stand for the pledge, bow your heads for prayer, skirts a certain height, don't talk in class until called upon, and a few other rules. They laid them out, asked if we understood them. Your analogy is off base. I don't find any parallel with what nuns did as religious teachers and the authority they had in the classroom to what some authoritarian regimes in some parts of the world do when they kill people for certain behaviors.
Maybe nuns are the gateway drug to brutal dictators in backward societies? ::)
-
That's quite the false equivalency. The nuns I had kept it a bit more simple. Show up on time, don't talk in class, stand for the pledge, bow your heads for prayer, skirts a certain height, don't talk in class until called upon, and a few other rules. They laid them out, asked if we understood them. Your analogy is off base. I don't find any parallel with what nuns did as religious teachers and the authority they had in the classroom to what some authoritarian regimes in some parts of the world do when they kill people for certain behaviors.
Maybe nuns are the gateway drug to brutal dictators in backward societies? ::)
You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.
-
You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.
I am ok with parents spanking their kids, it was how I was raised, but it has to be done properly and with compassion. For the same reason I issued probably no more than 2 spankings to each of my kids in their lives. And when I did, we had a long talk before I did it, and a long talk after I did it. It was not a first resort, but a last resort.
I did not say nuns can just haul off and hit children with reckless abandon. The nuns rarely hit anyone, that was the point. Corporal punishment was never doled out for a kid having a shirt untucked. You were told to tuck it in. You received demerits. After school punishment. Clean up trash during recess. Come in on the weekend for work. If corporal punishment ultimately happened, it was because of a bevy of things that led up to it, at least in my experience. Not first resort, but the fact it was in the back of your mind worked for some, not all.
Fear is a great motivator. Whether it is a whack on the hand, go to bed without dinner, can't to Johnny's house for a sleepover, don't pay your taxes you go to jail, if you speed you receive a hefty fine. This has been part of the reward, punishment of humanity since civilization.
I believe in positive reinforcement first, but studies have shown though that is the preferred way it isn't the only effective way and doesn't work for everyone. Some kids do need some corporal punishment. Must be careful in how it is administered.
-
You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.
I guess we know what happened to 6 year old Lennie :)
-
Per the SCOTSOW opinion release schedule below, it seems they're waiting for the very last day of the 2017/18 term (Friday 6/29) to release the McAdams vs. Marquette decision. No suprise there since they generally release the most controversial cases last. How do scoopers think this will go?
https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/sc_releasememo.jsp
-
Well, duh. 5-2 for McAdams.
edit: oops.
-
Well, duh. 6-3 for McAdams.
6+3=9. Interesting....
-
6+3=9. Interesting....
Sometimes I count myself and Rocky as Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, which is a neat trick since he lives in Colorado.
-
I think it’ll be 4-2 for McAdams with Gableman writing the opinion for the Court but Kelly writing a separate concurring opinion. I’d also expect a harsh dissent from Abrahamson, joined by A.W. Bradley. Also note that Ziegler is not participating bc she has some type of affiliation with MU.
-
Per the SCOTSOW opinion release schedule below, it seems they're waiting for the very last day of the 2017/18 term (Friday 6/29) to release the McAdams vs. Marquette decision. No surprise there since they generally release the most controversial cases last. How do scoopers think this will go?
https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/sc_releasememo.jsp
Nothing today. I guess a few decisions might dawdle through next week.
-
Two opinions scheduled for release on Tuesday 7/3. Not McAdams though.
#FreeMcAdams
-
Two opinions scheduled for release on Tuesday 7/3. Not McAdams though.
Is the length of time that the court is taking to release an opinion on this case give any clues one way or the other? Serious question if the judges are actually examining their own beliefs and how the cases relates to the context of the law.
-
Is the length of time that the court is taking to release an opinion on this case give any clues one way or the other? Serious question if the judges are actually examining their own beliefs and how the cases relates to the context of the law.
Nah, probably still trying to figure out why they took the case to begin with.
-
It's official. Decision will be released on Friday 7/6
-
It's official. Decision will be released on Friday 7/6
Slow news day, hey?
-
Looking forward to people twisting themselves in knots defending a court getting involved with in a contract dispute with a private employer.
-
Looking forward to people twisting themselves in knots defending a court getting involved with in a contract dispute with a private employer.
A citizen felt that he was wronged and sought relief in the courts. Regardless of outcome he exercised his rights under the law.
Frankly, this never should have happened. I can't wait for the "Presidential Tweet."
-
A citizen felt that he was wronged and sought relief in the courts. Regardless of outcome he exercised his rights under the law.
Frankly, this never should have happened. I can't wait for the "Presidential Tweet."
Not surprised that you would be part of the hypocritical class here. You have a history of that kind of stuff.
-
Not surprised that you would be part of the hypocritical class here. You have a history of that kind of stuff.
Hypocrite? Hardly.
The man sued for justice. I have no idea how that will end up but he exercised his right as a citizen.
Marquette mishandled that entire matter.
By the way, we recently filed another patent, this one on sequestration of carbon dioxide. And we didn't steal anyone else's intellectual property to do so.
What did you invent last month? (Besides pontificating incessantly on Scoop!)
There are doers and talkers and you, "Sultan," are the consummate pontificator.
-
Matthew 6:3 Keefe.
-
Hypocrite? Hardly.
The man sued for justice. I have no idea how that will end up but he exercised his right as a citizen.
Marquette mishandled that entire matter.
By the way, we recently filed another patent, this one on sequestration of carbon dioxide. And we didn't steal anyone else's intellectual property to do so.
What did you invent last month? (Besides pontificating incessantly on Scoop!)
There are doers and talkers and you, "Sultan," are the consummate pontificator.
Says the guy who plagiarized a white supremicist, was called on it, and ran away and hid for six months.
-
Prediction?
It's a conservative court so arguments aren't even really necessary. Will a single person be surprised if they don't rule for McAdams?
Courts in this country are about politics - not justice.
-
Prediction?
It's a conservative court so arguments aren't even really necessary. Will a single person be surprised if they don't rule for McAdams?
Courts in this country are about politics - not justice.
If that’s your belief, stop posting in this thread. No politics zone, Brandi.
#FreeMcAdams
-
If that’s your belief, stop posting in this thread. No politics zone, Brandi.
#FreeMcAdams
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
More like ❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️
-
By the way, we recently filed another patent, this one on sequestration of carbon dioxide. And we didn't steal anyone else's intellectual property to do so.
What did you invent last month? (Besides pontificating incessantly on Scoop!)
There are doers and talkers and you, "Sultan," are the consummate pontificator.
As someone who's lucky to have seen some early success, I've found one thing to be eternally true: anyone who feels the need to constantly bluster about his supposed accomplishments - and try to put others down in doing so - is proof that he has, in reality, accomplished nothing.
-
Hypocrite? Hardly.
The man sued for justice. I have no idea how that will end up but he exercised his right as a citizen.
Marquette mishandled that entire matter.
By the way, we recently filed another patent, this one on sequestration of carbon dioxide. And we didn't steal anyone else's intellectual property to do so.
What did you invent last month? (Besides pontificating incessantly on Scoop!)
There are doers and talkers and you, "Sultan," are the consummate pontificator.
I agree with this analysis.
-
Says the guy who plagiarized a white supremicist, was called on it, and ran away and hid for six months.
Source?
-
Prediction?
It's a conservative court so arguments aren't even really necessary. Will a single person be surprised if they don't rule for McAdams?
Courts in this country are about politics - not justice.
My guess is for decisions you don't agree with it is political, for those you do, it is justice. Same for the other side. We have courts for a reason, because laws can be interpreted differently and not always the way we want to see it through our own life experiences.
Will wait to hear the decision before weighing in.
-
My guess is for decisions you don't agree with it is political, for those you do, it is justice. Same for the other side. We have courts for a reason, because laws can be interpreted differently and not always the way we want to see it through our own life experiences.
Will wait to hear the decision before weighing in.
totally agree with this analysis-no source necessary ;)
-
If MU loses, as many on here suspect they will, does anyone know if they plan to appeal at the federal level? Is that even an option for them as the defendant in this case? Not being an attorney, I have no idea what recourse either side has in appealing the matter further through the federal system, whether both sides or just one even has that option after the decision. Although I'm not taking a side one way or the other, I've been following this case closely out of interest and would love learn more from atty scoopers out there on what the potential next steps (if any) for either side might be. Thanks in advance.
-
If MU loses, as many on here suspect they will, does anyone know if they plan to appeal at the federal level? Is that even an option for them as the defendant in this case? Not being an attorney, I have no idea what recourse either side has in appealing the matter further through the federal system, whether both sides or just one even has that option after the decision. Although I'm not taking a side one way or the other, I've been following this case closely out of interest and would love learn more from atty scoopers out there on what the potential next steps (if any) for either side might be. Thanks in advance.
Normally, the only court to which a party can appeal a state supreme court judgment is the U.S. Supreme Court -- no intermediary federal court. So without knowing specifics about this case (which may change the calculation), if MU wanted to appeal, it would file for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Then, if the Supreme Court grants cert, it gets argued and decided by the them.
-
Should MU admins be sent to prison for the atrocities committed against Mr. McAdams??
-
Normally, the only court to which a party can appeal a state supreme court judgment is the U.S. Supreme Court -- no intermediary federal court. So without knowing specifics about this case (which may change the calculation), if MU wanted to appeal, it would file for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court. Then, if the Supreme Court grants cert, it gets argued and decided by the them.
Interesting thanks. So cases that go through the federal system or circuit court of appeals started in the Federal system to begin with and state supreme court decisions are appealed directly to SCOTUS who decides whether to hear it or not. Got it.
-
Should MU admins be sent to prison for the atrocities committed against Mr. McAdams??
Pfft. Why go soft on them?
Nothing short of a public dismemberment should be tolerated.
-
Shut down the basketball program.
-
Shut down the basketball program.
So, the nuclear option (aka Hiroshima)?
-
Shut down the basketball program.
why punish the fans? we didn't tell lovell to make a stupid decision. expel lovell
-
why punish the fans? we didn't tell lovell to make a stupid decision. expel lovell
Lovell made a great decision regardless of how a politicized court rules.
-
Lovell made a great decision regardless of how a politicized court rules.
so when a ref or an ump make a bad call, they're homers, eyn'a? weak...very weak. once again, you reveal your incomprehension of the rule of law and the constitution. if the decision goes sully's way, it's more wine for my friends? oy vey
-
so when a ref or an ump make a bad call, they're homers, eyn'a? weak...very weak. once again, you reveal your incomprehension of the rule of law and the constitution. if the decision goes sully's way, it's more wine for my friends? oy vey
I know that you like to think that your parroting of Fox News, Mark Belling and like equates to “knowledge,” but it doesn’t. It means you are nothing but an empty vessel.
This isn’t a Constitutional issue. It’s a contractual one.
-
This isn’t a Constitutional issue. It’s a contractual one.
State supreme courts can decide contractual cases, too.
Hartford Elevator vs Lauer, WI supreme court
Mackenzie vs Patricia Best, WI supreme court
Manitowoc vs Lanning, WI supreme court (2018)
Other examples, of course. Maybe the decision doesn't go how you think it will. Whichever way it goes, there will be sound legal arguments for both sides, unless it is a slam dunk unanimous decision.
-
State supreme courts can decide contractual cases, too.
No sh*t
Maybe the decision doesn't go how you think it will. Whichever way it goes, there will be sound legal arguments for both sides, unless it is a slam dunk unanimous decision.
Stop passing yourself off as a pansy a$$ moderate. You’re not fooling anyone.
-
I know that you like to think that your parroting of Fox News, Mark Belling and like equates to “knowledge,” but it doesn’t. It means you are nothing but an empty vessel.
This isn’t a Constitutional issue. It’s a contractual one.
you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you. you might like to think you are right all the time there sluggo, but your myopic viewpoint of how the supreme court works is lazy at best. i also don't know how fox news and belling play into this...swing and a miss. just sit back and take the medicine. in your case, i hope it's a big m-f'ing laxative suppository-if there is anyone on this board who needs it-just grab something, bite your lip and give it hell
-
you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you. you might like to think you are right all the time there sluggo, but your myopic viewpoint of how the supreme court works is lazy at best. i also don't know how fox news and belling play into this...swing and a miss. just sit back and take the medicine. in your case, i hope it's a big m-f'ing laxative suppository-if there is anyone on this board who needs it-just grab something, bite your lip and give it hell
What a civil response.
-
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2018/07/06/marquette-professor-john-mcadams-prevails-academic-freedom-case/759800002/?csp=chromepush
-
What a civil response.
i treat people as they treat me-sully has too long been the board bully beating down anyone in his way and/or views thinking he is the know all/be all. yes there is a civil way to disagree, but i am sick and tired of his "i know better than ya'll. read my responses to most others who disagree with me and i can be ok with those, but...
-
i treat people as they treat me-sully has too long been the board bully beating down anyone in his way and/or views thinking he is the know all/be all. yes there is a civil way to disagree, but i am sick and tired of his "i know better than ya'll. read my responses to most others who disagree with me and i can be ok with those, but...
<sad trombone>
-
Stop passing yourself off as a pansy a$$ moderate. You’re not fooling anyone.
Not every is as hyper partisan as you or Rocketsurgeon. There is a large middle in this country. It used to be that both sides were quiet close on things, but we have been pulled apart for the last 10 to 20 years to an absurd state.
-
you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you. you might like to think you are right all the time there sluggo, but your myopic viewpoint of how the supreme court works is lazy at best. i also don't know how fox news and belling play into this...swing and a miss. just sit back and take the medicine. in your case, i hope it's a big m-f'ing laxative suppository-if there is anyone on this board who needs it-just grab something, bite your lip and give it hell
Cool it, no need for this
-
Not every is as hyper partisan as you or Rocketsurgeon. There is a large middle in this country. It used to be that both sides were quiet close on things, but we have been pulled apart for the last 10 to 20 years to an absurd state.
There is nothing wrong with being a moderate. There is something wrong with portraying yourself as a pansy a$$ moderate.
-
To no one’s surprise, the partisan court intervened in a private contractural dispute and ruled for McAdams.
Props to Lovell for doing the right thing. It’s not easy in this day and age to stand up for people.
-
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2018/07/06/marquette-professor-john-mcadams-prevails-academic-freedom-case/759800002/?csp=chromepush
There will be considerable press today and through the weekend on this. Good arguments on both sides. I did not realize this could have been 3-3 as on jurist recused themselves.
-
you know nothing-you are nothing but a partisan hack trying to demean those who see the world different than you. you might like to think you are right all the time there sluggo, but your myopic viewpoint of how the supreme court works is lazy at best. i also don't know how fox news and belling play into this...swing and a miss. just sit back and take the medicine. in your case, i hope it's a big m-f'ing laxative suppository-if there is anyone on this board who needs it-just grab something, bite your lip and give it hell
While I don't always agree with Sultan, his responses are way less partisan and way more logical than yours.
-
<sad trombone>
This was exactly what I was thinking listening to the breaking news this morning.
-
This is the right response to the decision by MU:
"At Marquette University, we are proud that we have taken a stand for our students, our values and our Catholic, Jesuit mission," it said.
"Marquette will comply with the terms of this decision, and it does not change the university’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our students."
"This case has always been about Associate Professor John McAdams’ conduct toward a student teacher," it said. "The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages."
-
While I don't always agree with Sultan, his responses are way less partisan... than yours.
That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.
To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one. Ginsberg and Breyer were both confirmed in the 90's (both in year and in votes), and that was pretty much the end of bipartisan support for judicial nominees (leaving aside Clarence Thomas - whose controversy had little to do with his judicial record, as well as Rehnquist and Marshall, whose "controversies" had more to do with racial issues than political leanings).
Unfortunately, holding up the supreme courts as partisan (whether State or Federal) and sowing fear amongst the masses over judicial candidates/nominees is a great way to scare people to the polls all the while ignoring the damage of making politicized courts a self-fulfilling prophecy (if you spread the message of courts being politicized as a campaign strategy, when you end up in a position to actually influence the makeup, you'll be more likely to make good on it).
Just another undesirable side-effect of democracy that would go the way of the dodo if mandatory voting were implemented.
But it's a hell of a lot easier to dupe people into voting for your candidate when you only give them two choices, right? So go on with the thinking that the courts are politicized, and spouting off about how much of a travesty it would be for the other side of the aisle to be in control and how evil those people must be. Because the justices, at least those elected/appointed before [insert candidate/official here]-derangement syndrome caught on, disagree with you:
"I miss [Antonin Scalia] very much."
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg
-
My opinion, McAdams should not have acted the way he did. He also should not have been fired for his actions, and that is what the case was about. His contract and actions did not support the discipline MU took.
-
This is the right response to the decision by MU:
"At Marquette University, we are proud that we have taken a stand for our students, our values and our Catholic, Jesuit mission," it said.
"Marquette will comply with the terms of this decision, and it does not change the university’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our students."
"This case has always been about Associate Professor John McAdams’ conduct toward a student teacher," it said. "The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages."
The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all. It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.
-
The dynamic going forward will be interesting. Obviously John gets his back pay and office back as well as probably some damages. But I'm not sure the university will support him in any other way. For example, will he ever be given an opportunity to teach a class? Or is his compensation simply a 'sunk cost' going forward?
-
Now that McAdams has won I wonder how he will be received on campus. Seems to me he will be persona non grata at MU ( at least from the consensus by those on this board) and it will be interesting to see if the administration finds some other way of getting him to leave.
I wonder how many students will sign up for his classes or will he be able even to teach.
-
nm i don't know why i continue to post sometimes
-
nm i don't know why i continue to post sometimes
Wrong thread. This is where you want to be: https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54409.0
-
To no one’s surprise, the partisan court intervened in a private contractural dispute and ruled for McAdams.
Props to Lovell for doing the right thing. It’s not easy in this day and age to stand up for people.
Ditto.
-
"To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one. "
i wasn't the one who brought politics into this as i am trying to follow the rules some have trouble with-NO POLITICS. i merely reacted to someone's knee-jerk reaction which i believe is short sighted. i've heard both sides numerous times. i understand the arguments from both sides. yes, believe it or not, when i hear certain "talk-radio" only speak of it only from one side(mccadams), i do cringe a little. if the universities, as a whole would not be so one-sided in most of their treatment of the "other side", this decision would be a little harder to take. in other words, i think today's decision was a push back to the left, hopefully reminding them that "freedom of speech" pendulum needs to swing back the other way a little bit
-
this case is just more proof that right wingers are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there, especially on college campuses. The guy put a TA in physical danger and claims that's academic freedom and liberals being mean to him. He's an embarrassment to our alma mater. He can be reinstated but I hope he's never allowed to teach MU students again. Liberty or Bob Jones is more his speed these days.
-
Great to see the fine court got it right. MU should be ashamed.
McAdams has been vindicated! Congrats!
-
That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.
To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one.
I ain’t looking at sh*t.
-
The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all. It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.
Duh. It’s a statement made by one side. It’s not supposed to be balanced.
-
this case is just more proof that right wingers are the biggest whiners and snowflakes out there, especially on college campuses. The guy put a TA in physical danger and claims that's academic freedom and liberals being mean to him. He's an embarrassment to our alma mater. He can be reinstated but I hope he's never allowed to teach MU students again. Liberty or Bob Jones is more his speed these days.
While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.
His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).
Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.
-
That's like saying Dave Chappelle is way less a stoner than Jerry Garcia.
To the previous point, however, is the classification of the courts as "politicized"... both Sultan and Rocket should be looking into the mirror on this one. Ginsberg and Breyer were both confirmed in the 90's (both in year and in votes), and that was pretty much the end of bipartisan support for judicial nominees (leaving aside Clarence Thomas - whose controversy had little to do with his judicial record, as well as Rehnquist and Marshall, whose "controversies" had more to do with racial issues than political leanings).
Unfortunately, holding up the supreme courts as partisan (whether State or Federal) and sowing fear amongst the masses over judicial candidates/nominees is a great way to scare people to the polls all the while ignoring the damage of making politicized courts a self-fulfilling prophecy (if you spread the message of courts being politicized as a campaign strategy, when you end up in a position to actually influence the makeup, you'll be more likely to make good on it).
Just another undesirable side-effect of democracy that would go the way of the dodo if mandatory voting were implemented.
But it's a hell of a lot easier to dupe people into voting for your candidate when you only give them two choices, right? So go on with the thinking that the courts are politicized, and spouting off about how much of a travesty it would be for the other side of the aisle to be in control and how evil those people must be. Because the justices, at least those elected/appointed before [insert candidate/official here]-derangement syndrome caught on, disagree with you:
"I miss [Antonin Scalia] very much."
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Vis a vis Sultan and Rocket...I believe in shades of grey. Both have their biases but one's arguments stand much more on solid logic.
I agree with everything else you said.
-
While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.
His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).
Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.
That's just plausible deniability. If you put someone's contact info into the blogosphere, you are basically asking them to be harassed by the internet's worst creatures, without having to explicitly ask.
-
The last paragraph was not needed and sounds of sour grapes. If they are going to relitigate they should then add another sentence that says that argument lost because they violated his contract because the case hasn't always about McAdams conduct as MU states, the justices' decisions state that was not what the case was about at all. It is as if MU believes it won a case that wasn't before the supremes.
Not sure what you were hoping for. Seems about as civil and even keeled a response MU could offer, given the circumstances.
-
As I said previously, there was never any question which way this court would rule.
-
While I agree with the McAdam's discipline and firing, I don't agree with the bolded part at all. He put information at there(he shouldn't have) but he did not directly put her in any physical danger(unless there is a story I missed) and yes people threatened her but those actions should be held to account for those that did the threatening not to McAdams.
His actions were bad enough without piling on inaccurate accusations (again, unless I missed something).
Ultimately, I hope the university does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the obligations of the court.
Doesn't that come down to whether or not you believe McAdams is aware of how volatile a segment of his audience can be? I personally think he's very aware that by publishing her name he opened the door to all the letters and other potential harm. That being said I feel that people on the left do this frequently as well so nobody jump on my back and accuse me of being partisan in this.
-
That's just plausible deniability. If you put someone's contact info into the blogosphere, you are basically asking them to be harassed by the internet's worst creatures, without having to explicitly ask.
Guess I don't care, if he "knew" the threats would happen.....we should be holding the people responsible for their direct actions so the threat makers are the true problem.
-
Doesn't that come down to whether or not you believe McAdams is aware of how volatile a segment of his audience can be? I personally think he's very aware that by publishing her name he opened the door to all the letters and other potential harm. That being said I feel that people on the left do this frequently as well so nobody jump on my back and accuse me of being partisan in this.
Whether it gets done on the left or the right (Doxxing I mean), while I don't think it should be done, I also think that we spend far too much time focusing on the people that publish the information and not enough time shining a light on the cockroaches that do the actual threatening.
I say publish the information that threaten and keep them in the sunlight.....it'll be amazing how little of that will happen once you start to remove the anonymity involved. It doesn't even have to be positioned as "go get this troll", simply a "I got threatening messages from XXXX acccounts who tie back to YYYY users", etc
-
Received an email from MU regarding today's decision. Continuing to portray the university as the moral superior/authority "we stood up for decency..." really angers me. I am disappointed that Lovell is reduced to empty platitudes.
-
The way I look at it the TA was acting as a teacher. She ran the class , assigned grades etc. . To hide behind the notion that she was a student was a stretch in my view and thankfully the court saw it the same way.
-
Received an email from MU regarding today's decision. Continuing to portray the university as the moral superior/authority "we stood up for decency..." really angers me. I am disappointed that Lovell is reduced to empty platitudes.
Glad Lovell continues this line. Marquette does hold the moral high ground here.
-
Glad Lovell continues this line. Marquette does hold the moral high ground here.
It is an easier pill to swallow after one realizes the administration is more incompetent and less malicious.
-
It is an easier pill to swallow after one realizes the administration is more incompetent and less malicious.
Nah. Lovell and co are doing great work. I’m fully supportive.
-
The way I look at it the TA was acting as a teacher. She ran the class , assigned grades etc. . To hide behind the notion that she was a student was a stretch in my view and thankfully the court saw it the same way.
Doesn't matter whether she was acting as a teacher, a lab technician, an RA, a phonathon representative, or a LIMO driver, she was a student. That was literally her formal affiliation to the university. It doesn't change when she teaches a class.
-
Received an email from MU regarding today's decision. Continuing to portray the university as the moral superior/authority "we stood up for decency..." really angers me. I am disappointed that Lovell is reduced to empty platitudes.
Marquette spent a lot of money to be able to say that. They are now reaping the return on their investment. The damages paid to McAdams will function as the cost of a PR campaign.
-
The way I look at it the TA was acting as a teacher. She ran the class , assigned grades etc. . To hide behind the notion that she was a student was a stretch in my view and thankfully the court saw it the same way.
McAdams was not acting as a teacher, he was acting as a right wing flame thrower. This is not "academic freedom." It's doxxing. He used his blog, which he knows appeals to a radical segment of society, to attack a colleague (if you insist on calling her a "teacher") which is not within the confines of his academic position. Now right wing organization will be lining up behind racists and bigots who have been fired for their social media posts, claiming it is outside the scope of their employment.
And here I thought the right was against "judicial activism."
-
Nah. Lovell and co are doing great work. I’m fully supportive.
if being shot down by the state supreme court is great work, i'd hate to see what bad work is in your book. mizzou is still reeling from their "great work" and their situation didn't require the attention of a supreme court
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"It was a moment of triumph for the protesting students. But it has been a disaster for the university.
Freshman enrollment at the Columbia campus, the system’s flagship, has fallen by more than 35 percent in the two years since."
-
if being shot down by the state supreme court is great work, i'd hate to see what bad work is in your book. mizzou is still reeling from their "great work" and their situation didn't require the attention of a supreme court
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"It was a moment of triumph for the protesting students. But it has been a disaster for the university.
Freshman enrollment at the Columbia campus, the system’s flagship, has fallen by more than 35 percent in the two years since."
Not even remotely the same issues/concerns. Trust me, Marquette will not have to worry about freshman enrollment as a result of this Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.
One thing people seem to forget is that just because other people/organizations acted in the wrong in this situation that somehow excuses McAdams for all of his bad acts. Yes, the student-teacher acted incorrectly, so did the student, so did other professors, department chairs, and the review board....but that does nothing to excuse McAdam's continued and willful flaunting of his professional standards. If he had written about the incident in question in the context of academic speech (discussing whether there can be opposition to same-sex marriage at MU) and left all parties unidentified and/or chose not to criticize the student-teacher conduct there would have been no issue, or at least I would have fully supported McAdams in his complaint against MU should he have been disciplined.....but he did not leave that out.
I expect MU to correct the issues which it and it's personnel were responsible for but I also believe they were in the right to suspend McAdams and support them in their position.
-
if being shot down by the state supreme court is great work, i'd hate to see what bad work is in your book. mizzou is still reeling from their "great work" and their situation didn't require the attention of a supreme court
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
"It was a moment of triumph for the protesting students. But it has been a disaster for the university.
Freshman enrollment at the Columbia campus, the system’s flagship, has fallen by more than 35 percent in the two years since."
The fact that you would even equate these two situations shows that you don’t know WTF you are talking about.
Marquette lost to a politicized court. Sign of the times. No more, no less.
-
For those of you with kids...
If he/she went to Marquette and ended up student teaching a class and doing everything exactly the same:
1. How would you feel about McAdams actions?
2. How would you feel about Marquette's actions?
-
For those of you with kids...
If he/she went to Marquette and ended up student teaching a class and doing everything exactly the same:
1. How would you feel about McAdams actions?
2. How would you feel about Marquette's actions?
3. How would you feel if your kid was a student in Abbates class?
-
3. How would you feel if your kid was a student in Abbates class?
Not good. I would hope that Marquette would evaluate and discipline her in the proper manner and not have a renegade professor take things into his own hands.
-
Thank you, Professor McAdams, for your strength and courage. You were improperly treated by MU. Glad the Supreme Court understood that fact.
Shame on MU!
-
Not good. I would hope that Marquette would evaluate and discipline her in the proper manner and not have a renegade professor take things into his own hands.
+1.
-
3. How would you feel if your kid was a student in Abbates class?
Why didn't you answer the question?
Is it absolutely necessary to deflect?
-
3. How would you feel if your kid was a student in Abbates class?
Pretty ashamed I raised a homophobic prick who illegally records his teachers.
-
The fact that you would even equate these two situations shows that you don’t know WTF you are talking about.
Marquette lost to a politicized court. Sign of the times. No more, no less.
Hey I know this is your game. But screaming "politics" every time a legal ruling comes down just because you disagree with it is not a good look. You may not be a lawyer, but at least attempt to engage with the reasoning and explain why you disagree. It's a pretty clear violation of McAdams' employment contract, whether you like him or not.
-
Pretty ashamed I raised a homophobic prick who illegally records his teachers.
Because he opposed same sex marriage he is a homophobic prick? I would hope that is not Marquette's position as a Catholic institution. We can respect the LGBTQ person/community without condoning their behavior.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/06/what-official-church-teaching-homosexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question
-
Pretty ashamed I raised a homophobic prick who illegally records his teachers.
Illegally? How so?
-
Illegally? How so?
Is Wisconsin not a state where you have to inform someone they're being recorded? I thought most were now. My bad if it's not.
-
Is Wisconsin not a state where you have to inform someone they're being recorded? I thought most were now. My bad if it's not.
No. That’s a minority position. Thirty-eight states and DC (as well as federal law) allow recording a conversation with the consent of only one participant. If you’re the one recording...obviously you’ve consented.
-
Because he opposed same sex marriage he is a homophobic prick? I would hope that is not Marquette's position as a Catholic institution. We can respect the LGBTQ person/community without condoning their behavior.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/06/what-official-church-teaching-homosexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question
All of which is relevant in your church. Even I'm against being able to force a church to marry them. But as a country that practices the separation of church and state then being against homosexual couples obtaining the legal status of marriage to ensure visitation, insurance, etc. is homophobic.
This is where my point to Rocket, regarding race a few days ago, comes into play. It would seem that to your age group as long as you don't beat them up or say they all have AIDs etc you aren't homophobic, but the line isn't there anymore, now it's about equality and rights.
In the interest of not hijacking this I won't comment further but feel free to PM me if you'd like to have a discussion further.
-
No. That’s a minority position. Thirty-eight states and DC (as well as federal law) allow recording a conversation with the consent of only one participant. If you’re the one recording...obviously you’ve consented.
Interesting. Thanks for the information, I had been curious why this student wasn't punished for ages but now it makes sense
-
Interesting. Thanks for the information, I had been curious why this student wasn't punished for ages but now it makes sense
For the record, it might very well have been a violation of some policy/rule at Marquette (in my opinion it should be), but it wasn't illegal.
-
Hey I know this is your game. But screaming "politics" every time a legal ruling comes down just because you disagree with it is not a good look. You may not be a lawyer, but at least attempt to engage with the reasoning and explain why you disagree. It's a pretty clear violation of McAdams' employment contract, whether you like him or not.
It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.
-
Because he opposed same sex marriage he is a homophobic prick?
He’s not a prick because he is homophobic.
He’s demonstrated his prickness in other ways.
-
It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.
Pure and simple
-
It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.
You know what’s pure (sic) and simple? You posting about a court decision, falsely screaming that’s it’s politics is a clear violation of the no politics rule on this board.
#BanDisGuy
#banSultan
#PureNSimple
-
NM
-
Seems to me it's time for the lawyers for both sides to sit down and settle the matter.
The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical. I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.
From Marquette' standpoint, this matter needs to go away. Sending it back to the Circuit Court for damage assessment means more hearings and, possibly, more trials as dueling experts debate damages and reasonable recoveries. All they will do at this point is give Professor McAdams more credibility and a bigger podium to stand on.
Before everyone gets angry at me about settlement, keep in mind that Marquette is the same school who offered a contract to a dean candidate for the College of Arts and Sciences that lived a lifestyle at odds with Roman Catholic teaching and whose writings were openly hostile to the Catholic Church. That one cost an arm and a leg to resolve.
-
I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.
Can't speak specifically about Wisconsin law, but that's a pretty succinct summary of the entire concept of constructive discharge. Generally speaking, if you're not entitled to fire an employee, you're not entitled to make the job so intolerable that the employee would choose to quite. Not sure if there is anything in the McAdams/Marquette contract that would take it out of this general rule.
I'm not disagreeing that they shouldn't try to resolve things, mind you. I'm just saying that in a lot of situations, intentionally doing things to try to get an employee to quit has essentially the same legal impact as firing him. I'd imagine that this could be problematic coming on the heels of a court decision saying that Marquette can't fire him.
-
Dr. Lovell, overheard addressing the BOT after the Supreme Court decision:
"Who will rid me of this meddlesome professor?"
-
My opinion, McAdams should not have acted the way he did. He also should not have been fired for his actions, and that is what the case was about. His contract and actions did not support the discipline MU took.
Strongly disagree. He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed. He disagreed with the decision. He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do. The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete. The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not. They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.
One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past. Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit. Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.
If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have. Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court.
Other clear aspects of judicial activisim: A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor.
His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor. In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.
The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision. It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology. Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are. Such an action is activism, not law.
The way I look at it the TA was acting as a teacher. She ran the class , assigned grades etc. . To hide behind the notion that she was a student was a stretch in my view and thankfully the court saw it the same way.
That is not what the court saw at all. They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination. They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct.
All in the name of academic freedom.
That is actually stipulated in their formal decision. So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child? Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation.
Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law. Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.
-
Can't speak specifically about Wisconsin law, but that's a pretty succinct summary of the entire concept of constructive discharge. Generally speaking, if you're not entitled to fire an employee, you're not entitled to make the job so intolerable that the employee would choose to quite. Not sure if there is anything in the McAdams/Marquette contract that would take it out of this general rule.
I'm not disagreeing that they shouldn't try to resolve things, mind you. I'm just saying that in a lot of situations, intentionally doing things to try to get an employee to quit has essentially the same legal impact as firing him. I'd imagine that this could be problematic coming on the heels of a court decision saying that Marquette can't fire him.
completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown. the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years. they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job. they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so. that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties. donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni, support him in his return to the faculty and get rid of the requirement for student groups to obtain a faculty adviser.
everyone here pretty much knew how the supreme court was going to rule. didn't MU? if not, they should be firing every attorney they have retained. unless of course they chose not to take their attorneys advice. why didn't MU cut it's losses? even justice ann walsh bradley wrote in her dissenting opinion the following-
" Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in her dissent that at its core, academic freedom is a “professional principle, not merely a legal construct,” which “embraces the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the academic freedom of the institution.”
this has an affect on EVERYONE, regardless of their persuasion, going forward
-
Strongly disagree. He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed. He disagreed with the decision. He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do. The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete. The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not. They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.
One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past. Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit. Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.
If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have. Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court.
Other clear aspects of judicial activisim: A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor.
His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor. In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.
The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision. It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology. Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are. Such an action is activism, not law.
That is not what the court saw at all. They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination. They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct.
All in the name of academic freedom.
That is actually stipulated in their formal decision. So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child? Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation.
Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law. Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.
This is extremely well stated.
-
completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown. the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years. they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job. they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so. that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties. donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni
F*ck that. MU doesn’t owe you (or me) an apology. For what?
-
I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.
I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.
So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.
-
It is in no way a clear violation of his employment contract. Politics pure and simple.
Right. So you are smarter than the majority of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. They are only making a political decision because you say so.
You are a unnatural carnal knowledgeing hack. And apparently not a lawyer.
-
Seems to me it's time for the lawyers for both sides to sit down and settle the matter.
The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical. I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.
From Marquette' standpoint, this matter needs to go away. Sending it back to the Circuit Court for damage assessment means more hearings and, possibly, more trials as dueling experts debate damages and reasonable recoveries. All they will do at this point is give Professor McAdams more credibility and a bigger podium to stand on.
Before everyone gets angry at me about settlement, keep in mind that Marquette is the same school who offered a contract to a dean candidate for the College of Arts and Sciences that lived a lifestyle at odds with Roman Catholic teaching and whose writings were openly hostile to the Catholic Church. That one cost an arm and a leg to resolve.
I'm not so sure. My daughter and I spoke about this today, and she's more intrigued to be in his class now than she was before because of the notoriety. If the man loves to teach, be around students he may wish to continue to follow his passion.
Shouldn't the lawyers on both sides already have had those discussions? Of course they did, but couldn't come to a resolution which proceeded to the civil litigation approach.
Marquette doesn't seem to have been served too well by its legal counsel, but those words have been spoken often in the previous 45 years.
-
Right. So you are smarter than the majority of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. They are only making a political decision because you say so.
You are a unnatural carnal knowledgeing hack. And apparently not a lawyer.
Oh.
-
Strongly disagree. He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed. He disagreed with the decision. He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do. The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete. The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not. They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.
One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past. Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit. Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.
If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have. Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court.
Other clear aspects of judicial activisim: A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor.
His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor. In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.
The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision. It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology. Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are. Such an action is activism, not law.
If she recused herself, he still wins 3-2. I'm sensing when conservatives lose, it is because of judicial activism. And in a parallel universe, when liberals lose, it is because of judicial activism.
As for the decision, if you read the inputs today from a number of legal scholars, the court got it right on the merits in most of the articles I read. Some questioned how it was wrongly interpreted by the lower court.
-
Oh.
Nailed it.
-
I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.
I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.
So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.
Jurists in other states are selected by winners of elections (Governors), and also often pass party litmus tests even if both sides claim they do not. Federal courts, the President nominates, also a partisan job.
Wisconsin has a non-partisan election for justices. You are correct that no one really believes that, but there are a number of states where justices are elected based on party. Here in Illinois, for one. Also in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Alabama, Louisiana.
There will always be some levels of partisanship with that point of view, but these are normally educated jurists who use their knowledge of the law to provide opinions based on the merits of the case. We often may not agree with their decisions, but those decisions aren't handed down because they said so. They are grounded in legal precedent or theory of the law.
-
This case is just odd
One party claims academic freedoms, then maligns someone under that pretense.
Our most precious amendment, the First Amendment has limitations to it.
Someone broke the rules, warned and warned again. Where’s the issue?
Stilla, I agree with the issue of constructive discharge is an issue for MU.
I think we can all agree, McAdams as a person, despite his being “right”, is a prick.
Oh, and....IN BEFORE THE 🔒 🔐
-
We often may not agree with their decisions, but those decisions aren't handed down because they said so. They are grounded in legal precedent or theory of the law.
Like Roe v. Wade, eh Cheekz?
if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.
-
Strongly disagree. He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed. He disagreed with the decision. He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do. The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete. The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not. They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.
One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past. Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit. Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.
If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have. Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court.
Other clear aspects of judicial activisim: A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor.
His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor. In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.
The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision. It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology. Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are. Such an action is activism, not law.
That is not what the court saw at all. They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination. They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct.
All in the name of academic freedom.
That is actually stipulated in their formal decision. So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child? Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation.
Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law. Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.
Seems no one wants to discuss this part of the outcome
-
completely agree warrior-let's try this from another angle-if i fired an employee, was ruled by whomever that it was unjust and had to re-instate said employee, i would be filling my lab gown. the arrogance of MU is almost as galling as their actions here over the past 2-3 years. they haven't issued the apology they demanded from dr mccadams in order for him to keep his job. they are throwing A LOT of our money at this issue and continue to do so. that is, in my books, takes on an appearance of an abuse of their fiduciary duties. donors who support dr. mccadams should rightly so be very disappointed and call on MU to cut OUR losses, formally apologize to dr mccadams and it's students and it's alumni, support him in his return to the faculty and get rid of the requirement for student groups to obtain a faculty adviser.
everyone here pretty much knew how the supreme court was going to rule. didn't MU? if not, they should be firing every attorney they have retained. unless of course they chose not to take their attorneys advice. why didn't MU cut it's losses? even justice ann walsh bradley wrote in her dissenting opinion the following-
" Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in her dissent that at its core, academic freedom is a “professional principle, not merely a legal construct,” which “embraces the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the academic freedom of the institution.”
this has an affect on EVERYONE, regardless of their persuasion, going forward
How did "everyone know?"
And, I don't believe this had to affect everyone. At least not in the way you think. I do not believe a professor, under the guise of "academic freedom," should be allowed to doxx a student.
-
A good example of how some times the legal thing is not the right thing. Bravo to Lovell for seeing through all the smoke and mirrors surrounding this case and seeing what what was really important. There was a professor who was cyber bullying a student. Not only that but the professor had done it before and had been warned. A man like that has no business teaching and no business representing Marquette.
-
I will also say again....conservatives cheering for stronger tenure protections is hilarious. I expect that the next time a liberal leaning MU professor says something outlandish like Ashanti Shakur is an American hero that these same people will be lining up to defend him/her.
-
I will also say again....conservatives cheering for stronger tenure protections is hilarious. I expect that the next time a liberal leaning MU professor says something outlandish like Ashanti Shakur is an American hero that these same people will be lining up to defend him/her.
we may not have agreed with this professor and despite many believing this was over the line, i believe she still remains a "professor". i think this would fall under the category of " outlandish" eyn'a? after most people got over the shock of how evil her comments were, they let it go. why? 1st amendment i guess. would this fall under your category of "cyber-bullying"?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fresno-professor-barbara-bush-20180424-story.html
i don't think it is all conservatives cheering. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but if they would ever admit it out loud, there may just be some liberal professors breathing a sigh of relief here as well. i'd love to hear alan dershowitz' opinion, believing he has been a breath of fresh air from the liberal side. same with jonathon turley.
just as your post seems to indicate here tamu, when you flip this, you are hoping views from the opposite side of the spectrum are greeted the same. once again, we may not agree with them, or think they are appropriate, but we have to swallow hard and let them slide lest we want to surrender the freedoms discussed here.
-
Did the Fresno State professor ever cyber-bully multiple students? Was she warned about this abusive behavior and ignored it anyway?
The answers are “no” and “no.” The fact is the court used a academic freedom as a cover for their political decision. And of course conservatives are gushing over it. Given the knots they’ve been tying themselves into over the last couple years, it’s not surprising.
-
I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.
I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.
So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.
first off, your first sentence is very short sighted-academia across the board was paying attention. this has ramifications further than you would like to acknowledge
the article you try to use to make your point merely uses as it's premise that the ELECTIONS were the most partisan...as noted in many previous elections and even appointments for that matter, they do not always guarantee the desired result or outcome.
your conclusion is faulty. refer to president reagan's appointment of justice sandra day o'conner and president h.w.'s appointment of justice samuel souter. in other words, ya can't always get what ya want. many people disagreed with justice roberts majority opinion on healthcare for example. he was supposed to be this "ultra-conservative" appointee. on the flip side, justice elena kagan joined the conservatives on the cakeshop ruling.
whether it's by appointment or election, the justices are chosen with regard to how they have adjudicated in the past, not necessarily their political persuasion. their adjudication isn't merely political as much as it is how they interpret the law. that should not be a political ideology even though the 2 main ways law has been applied seems to be indicative of a party affiliation. the way the rule of law is applied should be apolitical and unbiased. i guess it depends on which side agrees with the ruling.
-
That this has become just another Chicos and Rocket right-wing masturbation forum says everything about the quality of this thread.
Probably time to shut ‘er down.
-
Strongly disagree. He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed. He disagreed with the decision. He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do. The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete. The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not. They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.
One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past. Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit. Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.
If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have. Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court.
Other clear aspects of judicial activisim: A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor.
His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor. In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.
The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision. It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology. Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are. Such an action is activism, not law.
That is not what the court saw at all. They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination. They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct.
All in the name of academic freedom.
That is actually stipulated in their formal decision. So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child? Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation.
Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law. Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.
This "student" "child" had her own public blog which Mcadams linked to. My child would have stood her ground and given it right back at him. He would have learned you don't mess with my daughter. In fact she would have welcomed the debate.
-
McAdams was never fired, yet half the headlines out there proclaim it.
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160324-Marquette-Lovell-to-McAdams.pdf
Lovell accepted the 123 page report that recommended two semester suspension and a letter of remorse prior to his reinstatement.
Instead of apologizing and being reinstated, McAdams went to court.
I also find it interesting that McAdams was involved in 6 previous MU controversies which MU didn't reprimand him for.
While (some) educators are happy with this result, that "tenure" was upheld .. I would think administrations across the spectrum will ratchet up the filters for tenure.
-
While (some) educators are happy with this result, that "tenure" was upheld .. I would think administrations across the spectrum will ratchet up the filters for tenure.
Most sane comment yet on the whole matter. The McAdams case was a contract law case that, at its core, raised the question of what was meant by academic freedom. The natural outcome of this will be a legal field day in which anal attorneys spend millions of terabytes of data defining what is and isn't academic freedom.
Most of us outside academia never could imagine this happening. We're hired at will. We know better than to openly criticize our employers or to use the internet to criticize our colleagues or leadership. No matter how strongly we fee about something, we know there are limits to how we can criticize. That's why I find tenure so amazing -- you can do almost anything and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.
The value of tenure was underscored years ago in the Dan Maguire case. Then Father Maguire left the Jesuit order and took reproductive positions at issue with teachings of the Catholic Church. Marquette relieved Maguire of his teaching role contending his tenure followed the Jesuit order. Maguire challenged that and ultimately won.
-
Big headline in the WSJ: Marquette’s Black Eye.
And they’re right. Horrible antics by the University & they still don’t get it. Very sad and this will influence my charitable giving to MU
They were wrong.
-
This "student" "child" had her own public blog which Mcadams linked to. My child would have stood her ground and given it right back at him. He would have learned you don't mess with my daughter. In fact she would have welcomed the debate.
That’s not really the point.
-
first off, your first sentence is very short sighted-academia across the board was paying attention. this has ramifications further than you would like to acknowledge
Nah. I work in academia and people pretty much view it as a unique set of circumstances and the inevitable outcome by a politicized court.
-
Big headline in the WSJ: Marquette’s Black Eye.
And they’re right. Horrible antics by the University & they still don’t get it. Very sad and this will influence my charitable giving to MU
They were wrong.
I’m sure Marquette is having an emergency budget meeting as we speak.
-
Nah. I work in academia and people pretty much view it as a unique set of circumstances and the inevitable outcome by a politicized court.
No they don’t. It’s bad news for the school, but great news for America.
Take the L and repent.
-
How is the strengthening of the outdated tenure system great for America? Tenure needs an overhaul and this works against that
-
McAdams was never fired, yet half the headlines out there proclaim it.
Absolutely correct. Journalism and copywriters aren't what they used to be. McAdams was never fired, but our Chicago Tribune said he was.
Marquette has a myths vs facts page http://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/myths-vs-facts.php
-
Like Roe v. Wade
Yes, it is precedent and should remain so and will.
-
Yes, it is precedent and should remain so and will.
Want to place a bet on this?
-
How is the strengthening of the outdated tenure system great for America? Tenure needs an overhaul and this works against that
Why do you say that it's outdated?
There are costs and benefits to academic tenure. I personally believe that the benefits far outweigh the costs, but I can't recall ever hearing someone call it outdated.
-
The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical. I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.
Late to the party on this, but if you've ever met McAdams, this is the only environment he wants to work in.
-
Want to place a bet on this?
Depending on the terms, would consider it.
This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination. Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls. Their side uses it to drive people to the polls. But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides. But name the terms and will consider.
-
Late to the party on this, but if you've ever met McAdams, this is the only environment he wants to work in.
That was my guess yesterday here. He enjoys teaching, and by most measures has been labeled a very good instructor.
-
That was my guess yesterday here. He enjoys teaching, and by most measures has been labeled a very good instructor.
I meant just the opposite. I'm of the opinion he wouldn't want to work anywhere where his primary goal is teaching, researching, and writing. He'd rather clash with administration, maintain his blog and chortle at owning the libs. He would have no interest in teaching somewhere else or joining a different faculty with a strong conservative contingent because then he wouldn't be different and special.
-
I meant just the opposite. I'm of the opinion he wouldn't want to work anywhere where his primary goal is teaching, researching, and writing. He'd rather clash with administration, maintain his blog and chortle at owning the libs. He would have no interest in teaching somewhere else or joining a different faculty with a strong conservative contingent because then he wouldn't be different and special.
Has he stated he doesn't like to teach? By teaching, it allows him to dabble in his hobby of bashing the administration (sometimes deserved, sometimes not). If he isn't teaching, he loses that cache.
-
Depending on the terms, would consider it.
This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination. Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls. Their side uses it to drive people to the polls. But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides. But name the terms and will consider.
It won’t be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.
-
That this has become just another Chicos and Rocket right-wing masturbation forum says everything about the quality of this thread.
Probably time to shut ‘er down.
regardless-i think for the most part, this can be a civil topic. there has been a lot of good information here. your comment was unnecessary and provided nothing to the conversation. one cannot always go into a topic thinking you are going to necessarily change peoples minds. even when someone(dogies, tamu, warrior(s), brew, eng, hilltopper and yes sometimes even pakman) i still may disagree some, but many times come away with a "golden nugget" or two
-
our Chicago Tribune said he was
“Our” Chicago tribune. “Our” side. Another reminder that absolutely no one talks like this, and no one on this board thinks you’re anyone other than you. I’m actually Lol-ing.
-
I’m sure Marquette is having an emergency budget meeting as we speak.
LOL! No teal needed.
-
It won’t be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.
Agree. The right screams that the left will confiscate their guns, the left screams that the right will take away their abortions. "Slippery slope" = fake news.
-
It won’t be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.
It will be sent back to being states' rights. So most likely there are 17 states where abortion will immediately become illegal (including Wisconsin). Only 9 states have laws that actually protect abortion.
-
“Our” Chicago tribune. “Our” side. Another reminder that absolutely no one talks like this, and no one on this board thinks you’re anyone other than you. I’m actually Lol-ing.
No one talks like 4everwarriors would have been the appropriate response. :) Yes there are people that talk as I do depending on where you were raised. You come from a different era. Our boys (our military or our team). Our neighborhood. Our paper. Our community. Our town. My wife and I were at a fundraiser for a candidate in the last 8 weeks, and the term our side was used at least 20 times during the speeches given that night.
-
It will be sent back to being states' rights. So most likely there are 17 states where abortion will immediately become illegal (including Wisconsin). Only 9 states have laws that actually protect abortion.
Highly unlikely it is overturned. Our side does this to get voters and money. Their side does this with gun rights. This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's. We are practically in the 2020's now. It is settled law.
-
Highly unlikely it is overturned. Our side does this to get voters and money. Their side does this with gun rights. This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's. We are practically in the 2020's now. It is settled law.
I tend to agree that a full reversal is unlikely, but the Supreme Court has overturned its previous decisions dozens of times. There's really no such thing as settled law. It all comes down to the legal whims of nine people.
-
The US will continue on the same path it's on now. State legislatures will continue to pass laws that make it monumentally difficult to license providers, scale back the # weeks it's allowed .. until Roe's right will be so narrowly defined, there will be no providers, and no one eligible.
-
Pretty ashamed I raised a homophobic prick who illegally records his teachers.
;D ;D ;D
Great answer.
-
Highly unlikely it is overturned. Our side does this to get voters and money. Their side does this with gun rights. This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's. We are practically in the 2020's now. It is settled law.
The challenge is already underway through the Iowa law. "Settled law" is a fantasy Susan Collins tells herself to get to sleep at night. The list from Heritage Foundation exists to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.
-
Highly unlikely it is overturned. Our side does this to get voters and money. Their side does this with gun rights. This is the same drill over and over and over again since the 1970's. We are practically in the 2020's now. It is settled law.
Until it isn't: Dred Scott, Equal but separate education etc. Roe won't be completely overturned but could be limited. If I purchased a gun and a license to carry in Arizona and then returned to my home state of New Jersey with the gun and license I committed a felony in New Jersey just by exercising my 2nd amendment right to bare arms which SCOTUS ruled was and an individual right. So even the 2nd amendment has limits and not close to being settled law or equally protected in every state.
-
Until it isn't: Dred Scott, Equal but separate education etc. Roe won't be completely overturned but could be limited. If I purchased a gun and a license to carry in Arizona and then returned to my home state of New Jersey with the gun and license I committed a felony in New Jersey just by exercising my 2nd amendment right to bare arms which SCOTUS ruled was and an individual right. So even the 2nd amendment has limits and not close to being settled law or equally protected in every state.
What I am saying is it will not be completely overturned. Your examples are correct, and why states will continue to become bluer and redder in my opinion. There are few places for the middle. Eventually there will be a red country and a blue country, only a matter of how we get there and how long it takes. Pray it happens without bloodshed, but in some of your lifetimes (the younger people here) it will happen. The pull to each side is ripping the middle apart, both sides driving it.
-
The challenge is already underway through the Iowa law. "Settled law" is a fantasy Susan Collins tells herself to get to sleep at night. The list from Heritage Foundation exists to satisfy the anti-choice crowd.
You are the exact target of the message. The gun guys here are the exact target of the gov't coming to take your guns away message.
-
What I am saying is it will not be completely overturned. Your examples are correct, and why states will continue to become bluer and redder in my opinion. There are few places for the middle. Eventually there will be a red country and a blue country, only a matter of how we get there and how long it takes. Pray it happens without bloodshed, but in some of your lifetimes (the younger people here) it will happen. The pull to each side is ripping the middle apart, both sides driving it.
No, no, no.
Ironic that after railing against the hysteria of the extremes on guns and abortion, you espouse the hysteria of a vast red state/blue state divide and some sort of impending breakup of the U.S.
That. Is. Not. Happening.
The reality is, even in a "red state" like Texas, millions of residents vote Democrat. You think the 43 percent of Texans that voted for Hillary Clinton are taking part in some sort of red state revolution?
Likewise, in "blue" California, nearly 4 million people voted for Donald Trump. You think they're seceding to join a blue state union?
And what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't even vote?
The reason for the largely clear demarcation of red states and blue states in this country isn't because the people from those states are all in lockstep with one party or ideology. They're not. It's because the districts in this states are rigged to the benefit of the party in power when the lines are drawn.
I mean, this country wrestled with slavery for nearly a century before going to war over it, but you think there's going to be some big breakup over assault rifles and a wall?
-
You are the exact target of the message. The gun guys here are the exact target of the gov't coming to take your guns away message.
No, I vote regardless. Always have.
-
No, no, no.
Ironic that after railing against the hysteria of the extremes on guns and abortion, you espouse the hysteria of a vast red state/blue state divide and some sort of impending breakup of the U.S.
That. Is. Not. Happening.
The reality is, even in a "red state" like Texas, millions of residents vote Democrat. You think the 43 percent of Texans that voted for Hillary Clinton are taking part in some sort of red state revolution?
Likewise, in "blue" California, nearly 4 million people voted for Donald Trump. You think they're seceding to join a blue state union?
And what about the tens of millions of Americans who don't even vote?
The reason for the largely clear demarcation of red states and blue states in this country isn't because the people from those states are all in lockstep with one party or ideology. They're not. It's because the districts in this states are rigged to the benefit of the party in power when the lines are drawn.
I mean, this country wrestled with slavery for nearly a century before going to war over it, but you think there's going to be some big breakup over assault rifles and a wall?
My hopes are you are correct. Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now. We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies. The extremes are more extreme than ever. It worries me. The middle has become smaller.
-
My hopes are you are correct. Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now. We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies. The extremes are more extreme than ever. It worries me. The middle has become smaller.
This sounds awfully familiar. Hmm...
-
My hopes are you are correct. Social media didn't exist in any of those past areas of turmoil, the ability to organize is the speed of light now. We have people following cabinet members, senators, reps, shooting elected officials at softball games, screaming and yelling all the time, people on both sides beating each other up at rallies. The extremes are more extreme than ever. It worries me. The middle has become smaller.
So, in response to my post mentioning the Civil War, you can actually claim that "the extremes are more extreme than ever?"
Hmmm.
Civil War aside ...
- In an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, there were 2,500 domestic bombings in this country
- In the mid 1860s, anti-immigration riots killed hundreds in major cities like New York and Philadelphia
- Dozens were murdered in the 1950s and 1960s for their participation in the Civil Rights Movement
- Anarchists set off dozens of targeting political leaders in 1919. That was 18 years after an anarchist assassinated President William McKinley.
- In 1995, a right wing terrorist blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 169 people
I don't know if you suffer from recency bias or what, but no, the extremes are NOT more extreme than ever because Kirstjen Nielsen couldn't eat her taco in peace and people can be rude on Facebook.
-
Depending on the terms, would consider it.
This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination. Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls. Their side uses it to drive people to the polls. But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides. But name the terms and will consider.
And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?
-
And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?
How do you impose mandatory voting without violating the First Amendment?
-
And yet, I'm the only one here calling for mandatory voting?!?
At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.
-
At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.
I don't disagree, but the thing I struggle to wrap my head around is how do you ensure that people who are voting should/are allowed to vote. I totally get that voter fraud seems to be relatively rare, but I think in part that's because a lot of people aren't voting generally. Automatic registration makes voter fraud more viable.
I'm really torn on the whole thing because I absolutely want to make sure everyone who wants to vote can, but I also want to preserve the sanctity of every vote cast.
-
At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.
...but there are Judges who have ruled that even proof of citizenship is an obstacle to voting.
-
How do you impose mandatory voting without violating the First Amendment?
Red herring.
Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment. Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.
But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."
-
Red herring.
Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment. Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.
But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."
Eddie
-
Red herring.
Mandatory voting doesn't violate the First Amendment any more than filing your taxes violates the First Amendment. Besides, you're not being forced to vote for one of the listed candidates... there's still a write-in blank where you can vote for anyone you wish, including Mickey Mouse, Justin Bieber or the dog from Frasier.
But out of an abundance of caution, you can simply add an option for "None of the Above" or "Undecided."
Not a red herring.
Refusing to participate in the electoral process is a protected form of political speech.
-
At the bare minimum, registration should be automatic when you turn 18 and voting should be a 2-day minimum process on the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous that we as a nation are working to make it harder for citizens to vote than easier.
Selectively harder for *some* people to vote. It's a feature, not a bug.
-
I don't disagree, but the thing I struggle to wrap my head around is how do you ensure that people who are voting should/are allowed to vote. I totally get that voter fraud seems to be relatively rare, but I think in part that's because a lot of people aren't voting generally. Automatic registration makes voter fraud more viable.
I'm really torn on the whole thing because I absolutely want to make sure everyone who wants to vote can, but I also want to preserve the sanctity of every vote cast.
4 verified cases in 2016 out of over a hundred million ballots cast. Generally speaking, it's not a thing.
...but there are Judges who have ruled that even proof of citizenship is an obstacle to voting.
It is. Proof of citizenship or voter ID is a violation of the 24th Amendment that prohibits a poll tax. A photo ID costs money. The government is illegally collecting money in exchange for your right to vote. Voter ID laws are unconstitutional.
Selectively harder for *some* people to vote. It's a feature, not a bug.
Yeah...sadly true.
-
4 verified cases in 2016 out of over a hundred million ballots cast. Generally speaking, it's not a thing.
It is. Proof of citizenship or voter ID is a violation of the 24th Amendment that prohibits a poll tax. A photo ID costs money. The government is illegally collecting money in exchange for your right to vote. Voter ID laws are unconstitutional.
Yeah...sadly true.
You nailed it here. Like MS-13, "voter fraud" is a blown up scare tactic with racial undertones to it.
I don't have an issue with Voter ID, but the impediments put in place to get an ID are racially motivated and discriminatory. Closing DMV offices in minority neighborhoods. No, that isn't coincidental. Requiring a birth certificate to get an ID, again, not coincidental. Until they are readily and easily available for all then should not be required.
Closing polling stations in minority neighborhoods or on college campuses, places that are known to vote more heavily Democratic, are also racially motivated and also motivated by partisanship. We should be focusing on expanding the ability to vote, but the right is looking for ways to lower turnout and eligibility.
The highest profile cases of voter "fraud" right now is a white girl in Kansas who accidentally cast a ballot in her home state of Colorado too. No outrage on the right over her though since she's white and voted twice for Trump. Also, a white woman in Iowa admitted voting for Trump twice because she believed Trump saying the election would be rigged. Probation for her. A white woman who submitted an absentee ballot for Trump on behalf of her dead mom: no charges. But a black woman who was misadvised on her eligibility to vote due to being on probation, and who only submitted a provisional ballot that was never counted - five years in jail.
-
4 verified cases in 2016 out of over a hundred million ballots cast. Generally speaking, it's not a thing.
Don't disagree.....my point is that if you go to mandatory voting it could become a thing.
-
Don't disagree.....my point is that if you go to mandatory voting it could become a thing.
I'm personally more on board with automatic registration and making voting easier. It should be at least a two-day weekend procedure, but I think opening it up to a week would also be fine. Allow mail-in ballots like California does. Expand early voting. And if people are serious about reducing voter fraud, eliminate voting machines and go to all manually counted paper ballots.
I'm not sure how you would implement mandatory voting. I'm not sure what effective repercussions could be enforced. I think making voting easier will increase turnout, and what we should want is an electorate that wants to participate in our democracy.
-
You nailed it here. Like MS-13, "voter fraud" is a blown up scare tactic with racial undertones to it.
I don't have an issue with Voter ID, but the impediments put in place to get an ID are racially motivated and discriminatory. Closing DMV offices in minority neighborhoods. No, that isn't coincidental. Requiring a birth certificate to get an ID, again, not coincidental. Until they are readily and easily available for all then should not be required.
Closing polling stations in minority neighborhoods or on college campuses, places that are known to vote more heavily Democratic, are also racially motivated and also motivated by partisanship. We should be focusing on expanding the ability to vote, but the right is looking for ways to lower turnout and eligibility.
The highest profile cases of voter "fraud" right now is a white girl in Kansas who accidentally cast a ballot in her home state of Colorado too. No outrage on the right over her though since she's white and voted twice for Trump. Also, a white woman in Iowa admitted voting for Trump twice because she believed Trump saying the election would be rigged. Probation for her. A white woman who submitted an absentee ballot for Trump on behalf of her dead mom: no charges. But a black woman who was misadvised on her eligibility to vote due to being on probation, and who only submitted a provisional ballot that was never counted - five years in jail.
This is the issue I have.....voter eligibility confirmation should absolutely be a thing in the abstract, but the actual implementation is completely corrupted by the governments who run elections.
It's been a dream of mine that governments out source elections and not actually manage them themselves.
-
This is the issue I have.....voter eligibility confirmation should absolutely be a thing in the abstract, but the actual implementation is completely corrupted by the governments who run elections.
It's been a dream of mine that governments out source elections and not actually manage them themselves.
Outsourcing elections to anybody would be just as partisan if not moreso than the government running them.
-
Outsourcing elections to anybody would be just as partisan if not moreso than the government running them.
Why? It's basically an outcropping of something survey monkey does or what PWC does for the Oscars, why can't a 3rd party company run an election without it being partisan?
-
Why? It's basically an outcropping of something survey monkey does or what PWC does for the Oscars, why can't a 3rd party company run an election without it being partisan?
Even less accountability and safeguards.
-
Even less accountability and safeguards.
This.
-
Outsourcing elections to anybody would be just as partisan if not moreso than the government running them.
Why is that?
-
Why? It's basically an outcropping of something survey monkey does or what PWC does for the Oscars, why can't a 3rd party company run an election without it being partisan?
PWC and the Oscars might not be the best example.
-
Why is that?
See towers post that I quoted and then said "this"
-
Why is that?
There are tons of problems with outsourcing elections.
First among them, the federal government doesn't run elections. Each state runs its own elections. So, besides possibly a constitutional amendment, there's no way to require all 50 states to outsource their elections.
-
There are tons of problems with outsourcing elections.
First among them, the federal government doesn't run elections. Each state runs its own elections. So, besides possibly a constitutional amendment, there's no way to require all 50 states to outsource their elections.
I mean cities, counties, states all potentially out sourcing, not saying it's required I just think it would make life easier.
-
PWC and the Oscars might not be the best example.
Well unless we're going to do a game show on election night that involves envelope opening, I think it's ok :)
-
Even less accountability and safeguards.
Why? Guarantee I can build you a contract that would ensure high accountability and safeguards that are better than what the government does, especially if you move to an automatic registration model.
-
Back to the McAdams case...
The most disturbing thing to me about this ruling is that the court effectively ruled that students have zero expectation of privacy with regard to their personal information, and its use and dissemination by their university, faculty members, and other students.
The crux of this case was not the conduct of the student, academic freedom, etc., but the posting of personal information of a student without consent in a method that made it extremely likely to be used for harassment, unwelcome contact, and bullying. Marquette, correctly, viewed this behavior as unethical/unprofessional and deserving of disciplinary action.
As someone who works in the data privacy sphere, this court's ruling is extremely alarming to me. Consent should always be obtained prior to collection and dissemination of personal information. The fact that the personal information was also placed elsewhere, such as a university directory, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT.
This outcome is yet another indication that our views of privacy in this country are so ridiculously ass backwards.
-
Back to the McAdams case...
The most disturbing thing to me about this ruling is that the court effectively ruled that students have zero expectation of privacy with regard to their personal information, and its use and dissemination by their university, faculty members, and other students.
The crux of this case was not the conduct of the student, academic freedom, etc., but the posting of personal information of a student without consent in a method that made it extremely likely to be used for harassment, unwelcome contact, and bullying. Marquette, correctly, viewed this behavior as unethical/unprofessional and deserving of disciplinary action.
As someone who works in the data privacy sphere, this court's ruling is extremely alarming to me. Consent should always be obtained prior to collection and dissemination of personal information. The fact that the personal information was also placed elsewhere, such as a university directory, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT.
This outcome is yet another indication that our views of privacy in this country are so ridiculously ass backwards.
The crux is blogging about a public blog? Why would public blogs be shielded or protected from criticism?
-
There are tons of problems with outsourcing elections.
First among them, the federal government doesn't run elections. Each state runs its own elections. So, besides possibly a constitutional amendment, there's no way to require all 50 states to outsource their elections.
I agree with what you are saying, Pakuni, but I was not speaking to the logistics of doing so.
My "Why is that?" response was to the post that said "Outsourcing elections to anybody would be just as partisan if not moreso than the government running them."
-
Coleman is lying; likely has not read the opinion & related documents. #FakeNews
-
Coleman is lying; likely has not read the opinion & related documents. #FakeNews
I read it. I think it’s clear that the court made a narrow ruling that applied very specifically to this case and didn’t set broad precedents with regards to academic freedom and contractual law.
In other words they crafted an opinion to get the result they wanted. As I said, it was political.
-
In other words they crafted an opinion to get the result they wanted. As I said, it was political.
In other words, a conspiracy by "The State" to control private business... Politics, plain & simple
-
In other words, a conspiracy by "The State" to control private business... Politics, plain & simple
No.
-
Not a red herring.
Refusing to participate in the electoral process is a protected form of political speech.
Apply the same logic to union participation / right-to-work, and I guarantee you sing a different tune.
-
In other words, a conspiracy by "The State" to control private business... Politics, plain & simple
Where do you people come up with this crap?
Oh, yeah......
-
In other words they crafted an opinion to get the result they wanted. As I said, it was political.
Politics, plain & simple.
-
Politics, plain & simple.
Exactly. Thanks for reasserting my point.
-
4 verified cases in 2016 out of over a hundred million ballots cast. Generally speaking, it's not a thing.
It is. Proof of citizenship or voter ID is a violation of the 24th Amendment that prohibits a poll tax. A photo ID costs money. The government is illegally collecting money in exchange for your right to vote. Voter ID laws are unconstitutional.
Yeah...sadly true.
re:voter fraud-i guess that would depend on your source-over 1100 proven cases with almost 100 convictions, etc. if you care to look, here is a map where you can click on a state and it will list each person one by one. go ahead, it's user friendly-
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
and these are just the ones they've caught and you know, like bull murray and harold ramis...convicted? no never convicted...
-
re:voter fraud-i guess that would depend on your source-over 1100 proven cases with almost 100 convictions, etc. if you care to look, here is a map where you can click on a state and it will list each person one by one. go ahead, it's user friendly-
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
and these are just the ones they've caught and you know, like bull murray and harold ramis...convicted? no never convicted...
1100 people, over a 20+ year, across 50 states, tens of thousands of elections, with over a BILLION ballots cast.
Do you know what kind of "fraud rate" that is?
.0000007%
Methinks voter fraud ain't the problem when the powers that be are passing laws that cut down on early voting, close voting precincts in suspiciously democratic geographic areas, and require new forms of ID.
-
1100 people, over a 20+ year, across 50 states, tens of thousands of elections, with over a BILLION ballots cast.
Do you know what kind of "fraud rate" that is?
.0000007%
Methinks voter fraud ain't the problem when the powers that be are passing laws that cut down on early voting, close voting precincts in suspiciously democratic geographic areas, and require new forms of ID.
Gee. Whatever. Could. It. Be????
-
1100 people, over a 20+ year, across 50 states, tens of thousands of elections, with over a BILLION ballots cast.
Do you know what kind of "fraud rate" that is?
.0000007%
Methinks voter fraud ain't the problem when the powers that be are passing laws that cut down on early voting, close voting precincts in suspiciously democratic geographic areas, and require new forms of ID.
Facts. You'd like to think facts would have some effect, but people like rocket are immune to facts that disagree with what they want to be true.
-
Facts. You'd like to think facts would have some effect, but people like rocket are immune to facts that disagree with what they want to be true.
Nope. Rocket is speaking facts.
-
1100 people, over a 20+ year, across 50 states, tens of thousands of elections, with over a BILLION ballots cast.
Do you know what kind of "fraud rate" that is?
.0000007%
Methinks voter fraud ain't the problem when the powers that be are passing laws that cut down on early voting, close voting precincts in suspiciously democratic geographic areas, and require new forms of ID.
If only we could be that accurate in manufacturing anything.
-
If only we could be that accurate in manufacturing anything.
Saying we can reduce verification procedures on voting eligibility because voter fraud is so rare is like saying I don't need to lock my doors anymore because my house has never been robbed.
-
Nope. Rocket is speaking to very trivial facts.
8-)
-
Nope. Rocket is speaking facts.
Facts about the #'s? Yes. But the implication is that voter fraud is an issue - that is not the case and where the word "want" comes in. Certain people want voter fraud to be an issue and something people are afraid happens on a large scale.
-
re:voter fraud-i guess that would depend on your source-over 1100 proven cases with almost 100 convictions, etc. if you care to look, here is a map where you can click on a state and it will list each person one by one. go ahead, it's user friendly-
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
and these are just the ones they've caught and you know, like bull murray and harold ramis...convicted? no never convicted...
Your numbers are off, your link says almost 1000 convictions, not 100. Still small in the grand scheme of things. I have found over the years the right thinks this number is huge, the left thinks this number is zero (or 4), it is certainly in the 1000's.
We have to ask is it enough to care? When some elections are decided by less than 50 votes (city, county, district) we should care. If one vote one person is important, then integrity of each vote is critical to a democracy. However, not to the point it prevents someone from voting altogether. Need to find a way that prevents fraud and doesn't prevent voting.
1100 people, over a 20+ year, across 50 states, tens of thousands of elections, with over a BILLION ballots cast.
Do you know what kind of "fraud rate" that is?
.0000007%
Methinks voter fraud ain't the problem when the powers that be are passing laws that cut down on early voting, close voting precincts in suspiciously democratic geographic areas, and require new forms of ID.
Your numbers may be off, too, but your point is well taken. If you click on some of the cases that Rocketsurgeon provided, people are convicted for voting illegally 18 times, 13 times, 15 times. Those each count as one conviction, but those people defrauded many others of their vote for each infraction they committed. Also, looked to me that most of the cases happened in the last 6 to 8 years.
In my opinion voter fraud isn't out of control, but it exists and every vote should count. Because both sides have been caught cheating, both sides should want to make sure the vote is secure.
-
It is. Proof of citizenship or voter ID is a violation of the 24th Amendment that prohibits a poll tax. A photo ID costs money. The government is illegally collecting money in exchange for your right to vote. Voter ID laws are unconstitutional.
The gov't produces IDs today for drivers, citizenship, social security already, how would those be considered a poll tax when the IDs core purpose is to facilitate services or grant of privileges that are not related to voting?
In my view if we go to a national ID card some day, where everyone must have one for Universal Healthcare, social security, driving, air travel, and all the rest, that will be used for voting validation, too.
-
Nope. Rocket is speaking facts.
Yes, 1100 cases in 20 years. .0000007% rate.
Meanwhile https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
But again, I've long realized that facts are simply ignored by some people if they conflict with their fragile worldview.
-
Yes, 1100 cases in 20 years. .0000007% rate.
Meanwhile https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
But again, I've long realized that facts are simply ignored by some people if they conflict with their fragile worldview.
Politifact says false.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/dec/07/tweets/were-300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-polls-201/
Both sides, wild claims.
-
re:voter fraud-i guess that would depend on your source-over 1100 proven cases with almost 100 convictions, etc. if you care to look, here is a map where you can click on a state and it will list each person one by one. go ahead, it's user friendly-
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
and these are just the ones they've caught and you know, like bull murray and harold ramis...convicted? no never convicted...
Dude really? The Heritage Foundation again? An organization that exists to overturn Roe v Wade, make money for corporations, and restrict voting rights?
You're right, it depends on your sources. And Heritage is the right wing partisan extreme. You may as well quote Info Wars or Breitbart.
-
Back to the McAdams case...
The most disturbing thing to me about this ruling is that the court effectively ruled that students have zero expectation of privacy with regard to their personal information, and its use and dissemination by their university, faculty members, and other students.
The crux of this case was not the conduct of the student, academic freedom, etc., but the posting of personal information of a student without consent in a method that made it extremely likely to be used for harassment, unwelcome contact, and bullying. Marquette, correctly, viewed this behavior as unethical/unprofessional and deserving of disciplinary action.
As someone who works in the data privacy sphere, this court's ruling is extremely alarming to me. Consent should always be obtained prior to collection and dissemination of personal information. The fact that the personal information was also placed elsewhere, such as a university directory, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT.
This outcome is yet another indication that our views of privacy in this country are so ridiculously ass backwards.
Even the Washington Post reveals the names of college students. In the electronic age we live in, no one should expect any privacy be it in a national News Paper or a Faculty member blog.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/26/congressional-intern-suspended-after-yelling-obscenity-at-president-trump-at-the-capitol/?utm_term=.5063b3e9d158
-
Politifact says false.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/dec/07/tweets/were-300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-polls-201/
Both sides, wild claims.
No. Politifact does not say false. You are linking a report on a different claim. The claim was that turnout was reduced by 200,000 by the strict voter ID law. That analysis was different than saying 300,000 were turned away from the polls, which politifact ruled on.
The stats show that 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin lack, or do no have access to, the proper ID to be able to vote. Based on nationwide trends in voting, that is consistent with voter turnout being reduced by 200,000 voters, current analysis linked by TSmith. A simpler analysis shows that the voter turnout was 66% of all registered voters in WI, so statistically speaking ~66% of the 300k would have been expected to vote...or 200k.
Both the nationwide statistics, and the simple analysis are consistent with voter turnout being reduced by 200k votes because of the voter ID law in WI.
-
Politifact says false.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/dec/07/tweets/were-300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-polls-201/
Both sides, wild claims.
Cheekz, your "both sides" charade is tiresome, but your arguments are the same misleading mishmash they have always been.
Your politifact article is from December of 2016. Further, it looks at the fact that 300,000 Wisconsin voters lacked the ID necessary to vote. In then says it is false because "that number was not a head count of residents who actually did or would have set out to vote on Nov. 8, 2016, only to be turned away." Well, no sh!t, you're telling me not everyone tries to vote? Incredibly misleading.
The article I linked is from May of 2017, which, if you had bothered to read, doesn't make the claim politifact rated as false. Further, it looked across all states to determine the effect of voter ID laws on turnout. So your counter-argument has nothing to do with this point. Keep up the good work, Chicos.
But here is the money quote, the real reason for voter ID laws, which have nothing to do with the integrity of the vote:
"The lost voters skewed more African-American and more Democrat. For example, Wisconsin’s 2016 electorate was 6.1% more Republican, and 5.7% less Democrat, than the group of ‘lost voters’. Furthermore, the WI electorate was 3.7% more White and 3.8% less African American than the group of ‘lost voters.’ This analysis suggests that the 200,000 lost voters would have both been more racially diverse and have voted more Democratic."
"Voter fraud" is the cover story for selective voter suppression. One side uses the fact of 1,100 cases of voter fraud over 20 years nationwide as the boogeyman to selectively suppress 200,000 votes in one state in one election.
-
Here's a quick Q&A for all y'all pigeon-holers...
Does voter fraud exist? Of course it does.
Does voter suppression exist? Of course it does.
Does every person who commits voter fraud get caught? Of course not.
What type of voter fraud does Voter ID target? Impersonation.
What's the rarest type of voter fraud? Impersonation.
Has voter fraud ever swung a major election? No. (Deliberately ignoring Xavier Suárez case here since that was quickly discovered and rectified. And besides, Mayor of Miami isn't exactly a concern for the right-wing.)
Has voter suppression ever swung a major election? Not that any empirical evidence can show.
What is the most effective way to stamp out voter fraud? Mandatory voting.
What's the most effective way to eliminate voter suppression? Mandatory voting.
Why are Democrats and Republicans both opposed to mandatory voting? Because at the end of the day, they really don't care about voter fraud/suppression... they care about getting their people to the polls, and spending millions of dollars to scare people about, what's effectively, BS claims of fraud/suppression is a great way to accomplish the same.
-
Even the Washington Post reveals the names of college students. In the electronic age we live in, no one should expect any privacy be it in a national News Paper or a Faculty member blog.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/26/congressional-intern-suspended-after-yelling-obscenity-at-president-trump-at-the-capitol/?utm_term=.5063b3e9d158
Marquette faculty members have a higher sense of responsibility to Marquette students than the Washington Post does.
-
Dude really? The Heritage Foundation again? An organization that exists to overturn Roe v Wade, make money for corporations, and restrict voting rights?
You're right, it depends on your sources. And Heritage is the right wing partisan extreme. You may as well quote Info Wars or Breitbart.
You can make the same argument about Comrad Nichols and the Nation cited above.
-
You can make the same argument about Comrad Nichols and the Nation cited above.
Priorities USA is a progressive advocacy group and Super PAC that supported Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012. The study was conducted by Civis Analytics, a data science firm founded by the chief analytics officer for Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012.
It’s important to note that this study was conducted by a Democratic Party–affiliated group and has not been peer-reviewed or gone through the typical academic vetting process.
Nah, seems legit.
-
You can make the same argument about Comrad Nichols and the Nation cited above.
Not my citation. Also, rocket specifically talked about sources in the post then followed that with a source that exists solely for the purpose of stoking partisan fires in that same post.
-
Alright - was letting this go since it was about McAdams, but now it's really not. So...hope you guys enjoyed!