Update on prof McAdams

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's also not forget that it is clearly stated in written policy that graduate student instructors are considered to be students first and instructors second. So any argument that she was "really an instructor" is irrelevant in regards to how she should be regarded in terms of the code of conduct.

Was that the case at the time of the "incident"?  Did the student that she taught that ultimately recorded her know this to be the case?  Did any of the students?  I don't know, I'm honestly asking.

I'd like to see the language of the written policy because that's not how it has always be portrayed.  Was that consistent, only sometimes, etc, etc.  Again, I don't know, but would love to know what was in place at the time.

[Pakuni]

Well they certainly do in McAdams's case:

As you [President Lovell] are doubtless aware, our Association's [AAUP] interest .....

This is all well and good, but you've shifted the discussion from your initial point - that academic freedom and tenure grants one license to say or do pretty much anything  - to making it a question of whether or not McAdams received due process.
Those are two very different issues/contentions.

[Eldon]

This is all well and good, but you've shifted the discussion from your initial point - that academic freedom and tenure grants one license to say or do pretty much anything  - to making it a question of whether or not McAdams received due process.
Those are two very different issues/contentions.

Nah man, it just looks like i shifted the discussion because I didn't break up the post.  Or, alternatively, it looks that way because I didn't put "furthermore" between the two points that I was making.

If you read the AAUP's letter they lament two aspects of McAdams's suspension:
1) Given their knowledge of the situtation, the suspension was unjust (independent of the lack of due process):

Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams's continuing to teach as constituting a "threat of immediate harm" to himself or others.

2) Furthermore, McAdams was not given due process (which the theology prof corroborates):

Nor are we aware of the administration's having consulted a duly constituted faculty body at Marquette University about the propriety of the suspension or its conditions

[jsglow]

Or a professor calling out the classroom conduct of an instructor.

A Prof brow beating or berating a student is a clear abuse of authority. And I would scream loudest for McAdams to be disciplined. But from what I read, this instructor was guilty of abusing her position of authority vis-a-vis her student.

Did McAdams exercise poor judgment in terms of how he called her behavior into question? I believe the answer is yes. Should he be dismissed for that action? I think not.

I think you might be forgetting that John was already on double secret probation for past transgressions.  The paper trail is a mile long.  This was simply the last straw.

[jsglow]

you misunderstood my point-it is well known that liberals dominate the field of academia-right? i'm just saying that because of the liberal atmosphere created in general, not just MU, but all over, MU has to overcome that stigma in order to convince the public that the mccadams case isn't really about freedom of speech.  many will think that MU is not really going after prof. john for his political views-wink wink.  get it?  just saying, not trying to argue what it is, but what MU has to overcome

While I understand your point, let's consider other actions taken by the university in the last 3-4 years.  First, Fr. Wild personally yanked the job offer for the prospective Arts & Sciences Dean when the vetting of her far left writings demonstrated that they were clearly in conflict with church teachings.  Yes, MU wrote a check to make her go away.  It was the right thing to do as they had effed up the original screening.  Second, recall the Shakur mural incident this Spring.  It was formally brought to the attention of Senior Leadership on a Saturday, whitewashed over by Sunday night, and the director was terminated at Dr. Lovell's personal direction on Tuesday morning.  How would that have gone over in Missouri in today's climate?  You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think you might be forgetting that John was already on double secret probation for past transgressions.  The paper trail is a mile long.  This was simply the last straw.

Why was he on double secret probation?   I thought Brandx said the university wasn't out for him.  What had he done in the past that put him on double secret probation?   

[ChicosBailBonds]

While I understand your point, let's consider other actions taken by the university in the last 3-4 years.  First, Fr. Wild personally yanked the job offer for the prospective Arts & Sciences Dean when the vetting of her far left writings demonstrated that they were clearly in conflict with church teachings.  Yes, MU wrote a check to make her go away.  It was the right thing to do as they had effed up the original screening.  Second, recall the Shakur mural incident this Spring.  It was formally brought to the attention of Senior Leadership on a Saturday, whitewashed over by Sunday night, and the director was terminated at Dr. Lovell's personal direction on Tuesday morning.  How would that have gone over in Missouri in today's climate?  You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens.

With all due respect, at the end of the day, we are a Catholic institution (allegedly) and Wild had little choice.  As for the mural coming down, she was a MURDERER of a cop...execution style, MU never should have had the mural up to begin with and taking it down would not have been an issue even in today's "Missouri" climate....again, she was a murderer....they had every moral, ethical and legal ground to stand on to remove that mural, regardless of what is going on in college campuses today....most of it silliness.

[Pakuni]

Nah man, it just looks like i shifted the discussion because I didn't break up the post.  Or, alternatively, it looks that way because I didn't put "furthermore" between the two points that I was making.

If you read the AAUP's letter they lament two aspects of McAdams's suspension:
1) Given their knowledge of the situtation, the suspension was unjust (independent of the lack of due process):

Given the facts reported to us [the AAUP], it is difficult to see how members of the academic community would perceive Professor McAdams's continuing to teach as constituting a "threat of immediate harm" to himself or others.

You and I are reading this passage differently.
I believe this is written in response/objection to MU's decision to immediately suspend McAdams and bar him from campus while the proceedings to revoke his tenure are pending. The AAUP is arguing that McAdams remaining on campus and continuing to teach during the proceedings would not pose a threat, and therefore the suspension is unnecessary.
I don't think this statement has anything to do with the tenure issue or his dismissal (much less academic freedom).
In fact, the paragraphs in the AAUP letter to MU that immediately precede the one you pasted makes it clear they're talking about a suspension pending a dismissal hearing:

A faculty member's suspension for a definite time from his or her primary responsibilities is on occasion imposed as a severe sanction, second only to dismissal, following a faculty hearing on stated cause. Under the 1958 Statement, amplified as follows in Regulation 5(a) of the Recommended Institutional Regulations, an administration also may suspend a faculty member pending a dismissal hearing, but  only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance. Before suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of the faculty member's status through the institution's hearing procedures, the administration will consult with the Faculty Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure [or whatever other title it may have] concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension that is intended to be final is a dismissal and will be treated as such.

[GGGG]

With all due respect, at the end of the day, we are a Catholic institution (allegedly) and Wild had little choice.  As for the mural coming down, she was a MURDERER of a cop...execution style, MU never should have had the mural up to begin with and taking it down would not have been an issue even in today's "Missouri" climate....again, she was a murderer....they had every moral, ethical and legal ground to stand on to remove that mural, regardless of what is going on in college campuses today....most of it silliness.

Yeah I figured you would apply this kind of logic.  When they do something that appeals to conservatives its "well of course...why wouldn't they?"  When they do something that appeals to liberals its "the administration has a liberal agenda!!!"

[GGGG]

1. The student was acting as a professor and in charge of teaching class.
2. Just as it is ok to write something positive about a student/prof, it is also acceptable to write something negative or critical.

I think MU over reacted and over stepped its authority in how it has handled the situation.

No.  That is not how Marquette, or any other higher education institution, treats graduate students who are teaching.  They do not categorize some of their activities as "acting like a professor," and others as "acting like a student."  You are trying to create a distinction that does not exist.  They are students.  Faculty are supposed to mentor students.  You can't simply dismiss what is the very essence of the problem.

[rocket surgeon]

" You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens"

absolutely, except they don't think they are "lefties".  they think they are conventional wisdom, moderates that see things the way they should be and everyone else is either FAR right extremists or just plain ole liberal.  note the adjectives

[Benny B]

No.  That is not how Marquette, or any other higher education institution, treats graduate students who are teaching.  They do not categorize some of their activities as "acting like a professor," and others as "acting like a student."  You are trying to create a distinction that does not exist.  They are students.  Faculty are supposed to mentor students.  You can't simply dismiss what is the very essence of the problem.

Hypothetically, consider that a TA negligently teaches a bunch of incorrect facts throughout the semester (i.e. not deliberately, but let's say that this TA didn't prepare for the course in the manner that a TA responsibly would); when it comes to the final, the entire class ends up failing the course.

(Is "sh\t show" supposed to be hyphenated?)

So what happens to the TA?  Do you simply dismiss the actions because he/she is a "student first," or do you hold the TA accountable?

[GGGG]

Hypothetically, consider that a TA negligently teaches a bunch of incorrect facts throughout the semester (i.e. not deliberately, but let's say that this TA didn't prepare for the course in the manner that a TA responsibly would); when it comes to the final, the entire class ends up failing the course.

(Is "sh\t show" supposed to be hyphenated?)

So what happens to the TA?  Do you simply dismiss the actions because he/she is a "student first," or do you hold the TA accountable?

Well of course you hold them accountable.  Who said that they shouldn't be held accountable?  Cheryl Abbate should have been held accountable for how she handled the incident in the classroom.  She handled it poorly.

But there are proper ways to handle it.  Then there was what McAdams did.  He didn't gather facts.  He made a cursory effort to contact Abbate.  He didn't contact the department chair or dean.  He went right to his blog to call her out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, uhm does anyone know why he was on double secret probation since he wasn't targeted according to Brand? 

[Benny B]

Well of course you hold them accountable.  Who said that they shouldn't be held accountable?  Cheryl Abbate should have been held accountable for how she handled the incident in the classroom.  She handled it poorly.

But there are proper ways to handle it.  Then there was what McAdams did.  He didn't gather facts.  He made a cursory effort to contact Abbate.  He didn't contact the department chair or dean.  He went right to his blog to call her out.

So who gets to decide what the "proper ways to handle it" are?  And should that involve silencing someone's right to free speech?  And who is the arbiter if there's a dispute?

What if McAdams called out the student who was trying to make trouble instead of the TA?  Would that merit a similar response?  And what exactly does "called out" mean?  Is commenting on observation no longer acceptable?  Is it only acceptable to talk about your opinions when the majority agrees?  Or is it only acceptable to speak about something in a way that nobody gets their feelings hurt?

If this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, then I'd like to know who/what's been propping up the camel until now.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see this incident itself as a big deal at all... what I see is a system of tenure that's either encouraging or - at the very least - condoning actions that are contrary to the advancement of education.

In other words, this sh\t-show isn't about McAdams... my concern is that his fall is nothing more than a diversion to a much greater issue that no one wants to (or will) address: whose responsibility is it to enforce the line between education and indoctrination.

[GGGG]

So who gets to decide what the "proper ways to handle it" are? 

The University through its policies and procedures.  Which McAdams completely ignored.

And should that involve silencing someone's right to free speech? 

McAdams didn't lose his right to free speech.

And who is the arbiter if there's a dispute?

The University through its policies and procedures.  Which McAdams completely ignored.

What if McAdams called out the student who was trying to make trouble instead of the TA?  Would that merit a similar response? 

Definitely.

Is commenting on observation no longer acceptable?  Is it only acceptable to talk about your opinions when the majority agrees?  Or is it only acceptable to speak about something in a way that nobody gets their feelings hurt?

I'm not even sure how these questions are even relevant to the issue at hand.

If this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, then I'd like to know who/what's been propping up the camel until now.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see this incident itself as a big deal at all... what I see is a system of tenure that's either encouraging or - at the very least - condoning actions that are contrary to the advancement of education.

In other words, this sh\t-show isn't about McAdams... my concern is that his fall is nothing more than a diversion to a much greater issue that no one wants to (or will) address: whose responsibility is it to enforce the line between education and indoctrination.

This has nothing to do with indoctrination.

I mean I have repeatedly said that Abatte was wrong in how she handled the incident from the beginning.  I think many who believe McAdams erred believe the same way.  This isn't a political issue for me or for Marquette.

[Pakuni]

So, uhm does anyone know why he was on double secret probation since he wasn't targeted according to Brand?

I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.

See page 14:

http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf

[brandx]

I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.

See page 14:

http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf

Incidentally, I have never used the term "double secret probation" on Scoop. Ever (except right now in this post).

I have only used the word probation twice - once referring to Greg Hardy and the other referring to colleges paying players.

Putting "Brand" and "double secret probation" together is just one more delusional post.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm guessing the "double secret probation" bit was said in jest. you know, because it's a funny line from a funny movie.
That said, McAdams had been warned at least twice previously about criticizing students by name in his blog.

See page 14:

http://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-01-30-Holz-to-McAdams.pdf

I know the movie well....even played a round of golf with D-Day a number of years ago...it was a blast talking about the making of the movie, etc, etc. 

I'm also well aware of the PDF, I posted it here myself many months ago.   This is all related "the incident".  I'm talking about prior to this.....which of course he was warned and the university backed down about his conservative views on his blog.  That is what I'm talking about....that's part of the prejudice that many of us see, that the university didn't like his views long long (years) before this incident.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I've had many professors comment on the situation both who lean right and left. (they probably shouldn't have but that's beside the point) Every singl one of them agreed with the universities actions. From what they made it sound, McAdams was a guy who liked to start fires and conflict where there were none. It wasn't just this one incident with the student, he dug his own grave with poor relationships with other professors as well.

[Coleman]

There is a line, but I'm not sure we're all in agreement that line was crossed.  Furthermore, you can't ignore the history of what the university was trying to do with him and his views.  They are part of the issue here, at least in my opinion.  Ultimately that will be for a judge to decide, but I suspect a good lawyer is going to provide linkage.

Just like you can't ignore his past antagonism of the university.

[Coleman]

I know the movie well....even played a round of golf with D-Day a number of years ago...it was a blast talking about the making of the movie, etc, etc. 

You are too much.

[Coleman]

Graduate students are students.

If they teach, they are still students who teach.

They are not professors.

Their status within the university is that of a graduate student first. Not an employee. In the same way that an undergrad who cleans rat sh!t out of the rat cages in the biology labs for beer money (I actually did this at MU) is a student first, not an employee.

There is a massive power difference between a graduate student who is teaching a class and a tenured professor harassing that student. McAdams and the harassment victim were not equals.

If you can't see this, I don't know what else to tell you.

[jsglow]

I used double secret probation somewhat in jest but ut us fair to say he has been warned in writing in the past.

[jsglow]

" You guys are simply delusional if you think MU Leadership is a bunch of lefties and looks at things through that lens"

absolutely, except they don't think they are "lefties".  they think they are conventional wisdom, moderates that see things the way they should be and everyone else is either FAR right extremists or just plain ole liberal.  note the adjectives

I'd just ask you to trust me on this rocket.