Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[MUeagle05]

I'm just going to stop now before we get in an argument about when life starts etc.  I hope you can manage to do the same.

The time that life begins isn't really debatable anymore.  When "pregnancy" starts might be a little different.  But that is a discussion that goes outside the scope of the thread . . .

[Hards Alumni]

Well that wasn't really 'staying away'

oh well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The morning after pill is not any more an abortion than taking regular birth control.

Also, Chicos, the second (or even day) people have sex doesn't mean the baby will be concieved that day.  Sperm cells can live in a female for up to 3 days. 

Your opinion and not shared by everyone because it depends what drug we're talking about.  For example, RU486, the original morning after pill is also known as "the Abortion pill"

RU486, the French "morning after pill" contains mifepristone and misoprostol.   In case you don't know, mifepristone is an Abortifacient, in other words, it's job is to induce an abortion.  Misoprostol, on the other hand, is used to induce labor or flush out the system so to speak. 

Some morning after pills do not contain mifepristone, but more likely something like progestin and estrogen or even levonorgesteral (sp?).

So it really depends on what drug we're talking about as not all morning after pills are the same.

And yes, I agree with you that pregnancies can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.  Of course, the morning after pill can also be taken after that first morning as well.

[Hards Alumni]

Your opinion and not shared by everyone because it depends what drug we're talking about.  For example, RU486, the original morning after pill is also known as "the Abortion pill"

RU486, the French "morning after pill" contains mifepristone and misoprostol.   In case you don't know, mifepristone is an Abortifacient, in other words, it's job is to induce an abortion.  Misoprostol, on the other hand, is used to induce labor or flush out the system so to speak. 

Some morning after pills do not contain mifepristone, but more likely something like progestin and estrogen or even levonorgesteral (sp?).

So it really depends on what drug we're talking about as not all morning after pills are the same.

And yes, I agree with you that pregnancies can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.  Of course, the morning after pill can also be taken after that first morning as well.

You may call that the morning after pill, but that is not really what people are talking about when they say 'morning after' pill.

typically they are talking about emergency contraception... typically an 'overload' of progestin is used.

RU486 isn't REALLY the morning after pill... it is an Abortifacient.  It is used to terminate rather than prevent implantation.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but the medical community would agree with me here...

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think both were covered.  It depends which pill you're talking about, but RU486 is one of the "morning after" pills, but not the ONLY "morning after" pill.

[Hards Alumni]

I think both were covered.  It depends which pill you're talking about, but RU486 is one of the "morning after" pills, but not the ONLY "morning after" pill.

isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure

[bma725]

isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure

No.  It was initially banned in the 1980s, but approved in 2000 by the FDA and is legal in all 50 states.  It's not a normal prescription drug, in that it can't be distributed by a pharmacy, it has to come directly from a physician.

[Hards Alumni]

No.  It was initially banned in the 1980s, but approved in 2000 by the FDA and is legal in all 50 states.  It's not a normal prescription drug, in that it can't be distributed by a pharmacy, it has to come directly from a physician.

Yeah I thought I remembered it being allowed, and I seriously doubted Chicos would even bring it up if it was banned... But then that makes you wonder how often it is actually used to terminate a pregnancy.

My guess is not often considering the alternatives.

[bma725]

Yeah I thought I remembered it being allowed, and I seriously doubted Chicos would even bring it up if it was banned... But then that makes you wonder how often it is actually used to terminate a pregnancy.

My guess is not often considering the alternatives.

As of 2005, it was approximately 10%, but data was only available from 40 states as 10 chose not to report to the CDC.\

[The Pickle]

This whole thing is out of control.  If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it.  It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified?  How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation?  Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job? 

[GGGG]

This whole thing is out of control.  If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it.  It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified?  How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation?  Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job? 

The job offer was recinded due to the subject of her research.  Why do you believe she isn't qualified?

[The Pickle]

One of the articles posted at the beginning of this thread states that many believed she wasn't qualified and the university hired her as a means of being more "diverse".

[The Pickle]

The job offer was recinded due to the subject of her research.  Why do you believe she isn't qualified?

Here it is:  http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/arts-science-dean-search-fiasco.html

[GGGG]

Here it is:  http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/arts-science-dean-search-fiasco.html

OK...this doesn't really say anything outside of the fact that McAdams (who loves tossing stones at the MU administration whenever possible) doesn't like the quality and/or subject matter of her research.

Considering there were plenty of other MU faculty members that felt that her research was just fine, and the fact that she was promoted twice by a fellow Jesuit institution, it seems clear that at best there isn't consensus behind his views.

[The Pickle]

There is no true answer as to why they chose to rescind...many people were involved with the hire so who's to say what each person's motives were?  I think people point the finger at Wild because he vetoed the hire but that doesn't necessarily mean he WANTED to.  I hate politics...

[shiloh26]

This whole thing is out of control.  If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it.  It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified?  How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation?  Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job? 

I wont put the onus on anyone to sift through 17 pages of what is primarily a typed yelling match amidst confusing tangents, but you should read what was said.  Not even the administration is saying that she didn't get the job because she wasn't qualified.  They knew her sexual orientation AND her credentials well before extending an offer.  Nor is anyone so bluntly stating that she didn't get the job because she is lesbian.  It's easy for the "this is just PC" crowd play up the minority-card angle because there aren't a whole lot of white dudes out there engaged in the same scholarship as Dr. O'Brien was.  If there was one such dude out there who had written about the same stuff, perhaps something similar would have happened if he were extended the offer.  

Here's the crux of my side of the argument.  When the University rescinds an offer for a deanship that has been vacant for 2 years, its a pretty serious move.  When they come out the next day and offer what I feel are less-than-compelling reasons (in this situation, because it feels like a blatant cop-out) based on how her writings conflict with the University's Catholic Identity, (writings which they also had scrutinized before extending the offer) it looks a lot like they are revoking, on an important level, because she is gay and has written about it.  

Others do not agree with me, and I understand and do understand and respect some of the arguments levied on the other side.  I don't respect the "lets all just scream PC" arguments.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

OK...this doesn't really say anything outside of the fact that McAdams (who loves tossing stones at the MU administration whenever possible) doesn't like the quality and/or subject matter of her research.

Considering there were plenty of other MU faculty members that felt that her research was just fine, and the fact that she was promoted twice by a fellow Jesuit institution, it seems clear that at best there isn't consensus behind his views.

I got a good laugh out of Nancy Snow's comments.  Talk about orchestrated.  Asking for a round of applause when she says certain things in her speech.  Give me a break.

[ChicosBailBonds]

isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure

BMA is correct.  In 2000 it began to be sold.  The first Bush administration scuttled it, but Clinton got it through before he left office.  Plenty of interesting stories about this that you can find and why it was pushed so hard in 1996, for whom and the reasons why.  I'll leave it at that.

Many details here on the usage of RU 486 in this country

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5713.pdf

Medicinal abortion, like RU486, has been increasingly used in abortions since 2000.  Only 1% in 2000, but 10% by 2005.  I'd have to think it's probably somewhere between 14% and 17% now in 2010.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A full page ad.  Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it).  I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee. 


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html

[mu_hilltopper]

I saw the full page ad today .. pretty embarrassing on many levels.  Excellent job at making the situation worse.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I saw the full page ad today .. pretty embarrassing on many levels.  Excellent job at making the situation worse.

I'd love to see it, any PDFs of it out there?

[mu_hilltopper]

Here you go.

And .. correct me if I'm wrong, but 95% of the signatories are from the College of A&S.   One wonders, what of the other colleges, Business, Engineering, etc?  Were those profs not asked, or are they simply not as .. enthusiastic as to sign their names?

[cheebs09]

A full page ad.  Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it).  I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee. 


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html

Agree 100%. My uncle summed it up well when we were watching a news report. I think Fr. Wild was talking in front of a bunch of people opposed to his decision, can't remember the exact event but they interviewed a person or two that was totally against what happened and then they ended the story. My uncle was like, "well why can't they interview someone that supports him as well." It makes me sick that they paint the picture of Fr. Wild vs every person connected with Marquette. I agree with Father Wild not hiring this person, but I am shocked at how badly they butchered the process. I don't really see any people with a viewpoint getting interviewed, or at least shown on TV.

[wildbillsb]

Here you go.

And .. correct me if I'm wrong, but 95% of the signatories are from the College of A&S.   One wonders, what of the other colleges, Business, Engineering, etc?  Were those profs not asked, or are they simply not as .. enthusiastic as to sign their names?

The position in question was for Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences.

[GGGG]

A full page ad.  Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it).  I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee.  


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html

The story was the condemnation by the faculty senate and the advertisement.  If the supporters of the decision took out an ad, maybe they'd be interviewed too.

The Milwaukee local media, as all local media these days, are lazy.

Let me also add that the ad was stupid.  This story is over...she's not coming here.  Time to move on and learn from this incident.