Update on prof McAdams

[Blue Horseshoe]

It boils down to this. Is the university over stepping its bounds when it contacts McAdams or not. If so, the letters are meaningless.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I'm simply stating that this will play out over time and more information will be released.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It boils down to this. Is the university over stepping its bounds when it contacts McAdams or not. If so, the letters are meaningless.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I'm simply stating that this will play out over time and more information will be released.

Ya, I guess this is just where we fundamentally disagree. I recall now that we've sort of had this conversation already.

I'm perfectly fine with an employer protecting itself if/when an employee might be doing damage to the brand or company. This is the real world, folks. Can't just say whatever you want and expect no consequences.

As far as McAdams "academic freedom", I don't consider his blog post based upon a second-hand, uncorroborated account from an undergraduate to be something that needs to be protected under "academic freedom".

I'm fine with McAdams challenging MU, and fine with him doing it publicly. But, there are clearly appropriate channels for that kind of thing (where he would have academic freedom). To me, this blog doesn't really meet the criteria.

Now, MU has fired him, and in order for that to "hold up", they will have to have warned him about this stuff in the past. I guess we'll wait and see if MU did that.

[keefe]

"The cops shot him because he's black!"

"MU fired him because he's conservative!"

Maybe just wait until we hear more actual facts? From what I have seen so far, it doesn't look like a witch hunt... but I've been wrong before.

Let's not be naive, Ammo. You are much too intelligent for that.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let's not be naive, Ammo. You are much too intelligent for that.

We have to step outside of our own biases and at least examine the facts before having an opinion.

[rocket surgeon]

We have to step outside of our own biases and at least examine the facts before having an opinion.

the problem is, are we ever going to really have all the facts?  not unless there is some sort of trial and i highly doubt that is going to happen.  i'm pretty sure that it will come down to an exit strategy agreed upon by both marquette and mccadams and will probably have a gag order. marquette, i'm sure, wants this to quietly go buh-bye. if that becomes the case, it's going to leave us sluggos on the scoop postulating away without all of the facts...then what?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Depends on the student.  I received a check for every level of my education.

With the understanding that check was payment for teaching services?

I would argue if a TA is being paid to teach, they are a student AND a teacher.

[Blue Horseshoe]

TheFire.org continues to bring attention to the situation. Marquette makes their list of 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech for 2014. MU speech code also gets a nice little write up.

Speech Code Profile:
http://www.thefire.org/speech-code-of-the-month-marquette-university/

2014 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech:
http://www.thefire.org/fire-announces-10-worst-colleges-free-speech-2014/

Detailed reasoning via HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/10-worst-for-free-speech_b_6769564.html

[forgetful]

With the understanding that check was payment for teaching services?

I would argue if a TA is being paid to teach, they are a student AND a teacher.

Partially, for teaching services.  And at no time was I considered anything besides a student by any of the institutions I attended (and was paid to attend).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

the problem is, are we ever going to really have all the facts?  not unless there is some sort of trial and i highly doubt that is going to happen.  i'm pretty sure that it will come down to an exit strategy agreed upon by both marquette and mccadams and will probably have a gag order. marquette, i'm sure, wants this to quietly go buh-bye. if that becomes the case, it's going to leave us sluggos on the scoop postulating away without all of the facts...then what?

It's a fair point, I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction of "They fired him because he's conservative! Down with liberals!" (shakes fist).

People will undoubtedly draw different conclusions even if we all had the facts, but let's at least try to examine the issue before we all run to our comfortable corners and resort back to cliche rants.

[Lennys Tap]

It's a fair point, I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction of "They fired him because he's conservative! Down with liberals!" (shakes fist).

People will undoubtedly draw different conclusions even if we all had the facts, but let's at least try to examine the issue before we all run to our comfortable corners and resort back to cliche rants.

People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.

I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.

We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.

We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.

Bravo! Couldn't agree more. That doesn't change the depressing fact that most people see this along ideological lines. It's either a matter of principal or not, but for most that depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Bravo! Couldn't agree more. That doesn't change the depressing fact that most people see this along ideological lines. It's either a matter of principal or not, but for most that depends on whose ox is being gored.

Agreed.

And listen, I'm not blind to the fact that McAdams may indeed getting railroaded by MU...

HOWEVER, I'm not going to immediately jump on that train just because he likes guys with an "R" next to their name.

Also, I'm not going to act like MU should shut down anybody that has a dissenting voice. That's not in the school's mission.

[forgetful]

People have already drawn their conclusions. Shockingly, conservatives think he got shafted and liberals say "it's about time". Even if we had "all of the facts" those opinions wouldn't change for most of the "believers". People see what they want to see.

Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage).  It was all the actions thereafter. 

When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure.  At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.

The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked.  It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us.  It is strictly his actions in regards to students.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage).  It was all the actions thereafter. 

When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure.  At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.

The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked.  It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us.  It is strictly his actions in regards to students.

Well, allegedly he has been warned before.

IF MU was very clear in their warnings, then they likely have a good case to remove him for cause.

If the warnings were vague, undocumented, or the punishment isn't consistent with what others have received, then he has a good case.

[forgetful]

Well, allegedly he has been warned before.

IF MU was very clear in their warnings, then they likely have a good case to remove him for cause.

If the warnings were vague, undocumented, or the punishment isn't consistent with what others have received, then he has a good case.

Good point.  Should definitely have qualified the previous warnings.

[Eldon]

I may not speak for others, but I am in the McAdams corner (at least given my current information set) not for ideological reasons, but because I think at worst Marquette breached their contract and at best violated the norms regarding academic tenure.

Legal aspects of a potential breach of contract notwithstanding, I personally put tenure on a very, very high pedestal.  I think the benefit of giving professors secured freedom of speech in both research and teaching outweigh the costs (we are currently bearing the cost in this very case, i.e., securing the hiring of a douchebag) that accompany tenure.  I think revoking tenure absent a gross violation of conduct has the potential to set a bad precedent, both in principle and in practice. Practically speaking, some potential faculty member who is on the margin between choosing MU and some other school may be pushed toward the other school.

Some claim that McAdams is a victim of the ultra liberal mobs that fill the ranks of university administration as well as the faculties of the humanities and most social sciences.  I disagree.  Would the administration and faculty be pushing this hard if it were a liberal professor in the hot seat regarding a liberal issue?  Probably not, if I am being honest.  But IMO that is a moot point.  A conservative going into academia knows what he is getting himself into (dealing with ultra liberals) and thus I allocate no sympathy points when he plays the victim card.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I may not speak for others, but I am in the McAdams corner (at least given my current information set) not for ideological reasons, but because I think at worst Marquette breached their contract and at best violated the norms regarding academic tenure.

Legal aspects of a potential breach of contract notwithstanding, I personally put tenure on a very, very high pedestal.  I think the benefit of giving professors secured freedom of speech in both research and teaching outweigh the costs (we are currently bearing the cost in this very case, i.e., securing the hiring of a douchebag) that accompany tenure.  I think revoking tenure absent a gross violation of conduct has the potential to set a bad precedent, both in principle and in practice. Practically speaking, some potential faculty member who is on the margin between choosing MU and some other school may be pushed toward the other school.

Some claim that McAdams is a victim of the ultra liberal mobs that fill the ranks of university administration as well as the faculties of the humanities and most social sciences.  I disagree.  Would the administration and faculty be pushing this hard if it were a liberal professor in the hot seat regarding a liberal issue?  Probably not, if I am being honest.  But IMO that is a moot point.  A conservative going into academia knows what he is getting himself into (dealing with ultra liberals) and thus I allocate no sympathy points when he plays the victim card.

I guess my question would be: What does "academic freedom" cover, and how does MU (or any school for that matter) apply it?

As an example, if (insert prof) starts writing a gossip blog and airs every rumor he/she has ever hear around campus (about every prof., TA and student), is that covered?

Obviously McAdams didn't go that far, but I'm not sure that his blog should be protected the same as a research paper, or published work. But, that's a personal opinion... I have no idea on a school's official criteria.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm just trying to encourage people here (most of whom have a Jesuit education) to challenge themselves to step outside of their normal assumptions and engage in some critical thinking.

We all don't have to come to the say conclusion, but I don't like when people sprint to the answer that fits their own viewpoint. We have Marquette degrees. We should know better.

Part of the facts, however, is that academia is filled with liberal ideologues and MU is no exception. This has been the case in academia for decades.  Now, one can pretend that doesn't exist, but it would be ignoring facts.  People can claim to not have biases, but very few can truly purge them completely.

I think ignoring these factors, to use your example, can be equally problematic.  Now, this is given the facts as they are known today.  Maybe more facts come out, but the biggest one is that MU has been on McAdams for a number of years and much of it has to do with his ideological positions.  His blog was not well read, didn't have huge followings, but you ask enough people at MU that have been around the block and there were professors incensed at his viewpoints.  You can't ignore that as part of the bigger discussion here.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Part of the facts, however, is that academia is filled with liberal ideologues and MU is no exception. This has been the case in academia for decades.  Now, one can pretend that doesn't exist, but it would be ignoring facts.  People can claim to not have biases, but very few can truly purge them completely.

I think ignoring these factors, to use your example, can be equally problematic.  Now, this is given the facts as they are known today.  Maybe more facts come out, but the biggest one is that MU has been on McAdams for a number of years and much of it has to do with his ideological positions.  His blog was not well read, didn't have huge followings, but you ask enough people at MU that have been around the block and there were professors incensed at his viewpoints.  You can't ignore that as part of the bigger discussion here.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is a "fact"?

If it is, I am honestly unaware of his persecution at MU.

[Lennys Tap]

Although some divide along ideological lines, I think the vast majority on here (myself included) do not care one iota about what precipitated the events (gay marriage).  It was all the actions thereafter.  

When it immediately occurred, I commented that he was dangerously close to revocation of tenure.  At the time, I was unaware that he had previously been warned about naming students in blog posts.

The previous warnings, takes it from dangerously close to revoked.  It really has nothing to do with politics for many of us.  It is strictly his actions in regards to students.

No offense intended, but an awful lot of people here are saying (and have likely convinced themselves) that politics doesn't inform their opinion. Both conservatives and liberals feel free speech and academic freedom are important. And both feel that a university and its faculty must adhere to certain rules. Two conflicting principles, how does one decide which prevails? It's not a coincidence that conservatives side with a conservative professor and liberals with the institution. Make the professor a liberal lion and positions would flip.

The larger point (and it's a valid one, I think) that conservatives make is when an institution is so tilted in one direction can it be fair to minority opinion? It doesn't matter if the McAdams narrative is a perfect fit - it's close enough, certainly closer than the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative fit the also very important and valid discussion of how people of color are treated by the police in places like Ferguson, Mo.

Predictably (and sadly) liberals don't want to deal with the fact that conservatives are marginalized on our college campuses and conservatives don't want to deal with the fact that our laws are often not fairly enforced. Rather than try to solve problems people look for anecdotal evidence (lots of that on both side of every issue) to make their points. Meanwhile, the wheels spin and people dig in...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

No offense intended, but an awful lot of people here are saying (and have likely convinced themselves) that politics doesn't inform their opinion. Both conservatives and liberals feel free speech and academic freedom are important. And both feel that a university and its faculty must adhere to certain rules. Two conflicting principles, how does one decide which prevails? It's not a coincidence that conservatives side with a conservative professor and liberals with the institution. Make the professor a liberal lion and positions would flip.

The larger point (and it's a valid one, I think) that conservatives make is when an institution is so tilted in one direction can it be fair to minority opinion? It doesn't matter if the McAdams narrative is a perfect fit - it's close enough, certainly closer than the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative fit the also very important and valid discussion of how people of color are treated by the police in places like Ferguson, Mo.

Predictably (and sadly) liberals don't want to deal with the fact that conservatives are marginalized on our college campuses and conservatives don't want to deal with the fact that our laws are often not fairly enforced. Rather than try to solve problems people look for anecdotal evidence (lots of that on both side of every issue) to make their points. Meanwhile, the wheels spin and people dig in...

Nicely put. Your overall point is spot on.

Although, I have to add that a conservative is being marginalized on a college campus, he or she can presumably find another career.

If minorities are marginalized by law enforcement, the stakes are much higher.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is a "fact"?

If it is, I am honestly unaware of his persecution at MU.

He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog.   According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years.  Are they afraid to speak up...yes. 

There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus.  He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.

My bigger question for you and others.  If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race?  When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog.   According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years.  Are they afraid to speak up...yes. 

There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus.  He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.

My bigger question for you and others.  If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race?  When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?

#1 That's all well and good, but again, let's not call that "factual". If MU did ask McAdams to "pull back",  what were the specific instructions? What has been documented? Where did we hear about that, McAdams himself? MU? T

And again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I think it's really easy to paint a narrative that McAdams has been "oppressed" by big bad academia. It's much harder to actually take a critical look and examine the facts (or at least what we know are facts).

#2 I have no idea. I'm not resenting liberals or speaking on their behalf. That's not really my intention. I'm just interested in this specific topic because I don't like seeing people sprint out to some sort of narrative or conclusion before we start asking the correct questions.

[mu-rara]

He was asked in 2011 to pull back on his blog.   According to some of the handful of conservative professors on MU's campus, this witch hunt has been going on for 5+ years.  Are they afraid to speak up...yes. 

There was one Poli Sci professor (now has tenure) that went through this about 20 years ago on campus.  He has conservative positions and his tenure was greatly in doubt because of the political nonsense that goes on there.

My bigger question for you and others.  If diversity is a goal of the left, which it clearly is, does that only include gender, sexual preference, race?  When does diversity of thought, opinion, etc ever come into the equation?

Did Chris Wolfe get the message?  Crawl back in your hole and we'll grant you tenure.