Marquette University honors ’70s cop-killer Assata Shakur with mural

[Pakuni]

And they ignore that MU has been harassing the guy for years.

Also, McAdams just didn't call out some random student on his blog.  He called out a student teacher, which is a very different matter, and is part of the contentious nature of this.  IMO, if you're teaching a class, you are a teacher first and student second.  

Your opinion is irrelevant, in that it's contrary to the opinion and policies of Marquette and every other school out there. They make it very clear that a TA is first and foremost a student, and should be treated as such.
How exactly has the university been harassing the guy for years? I mean, other than telling him to stop naming students on his blog.

[source?]

Like I said a few times.  No idea what actually transpired.  I was just referring to the claims made by supporters of Shakur.  It would appear that the reports by supporters are being a little loose with details (aka not directly related to the trooper). 

The issues with all evidence saying she did not handle or shoot a gun, though are demonstrably correct.  As is the ballistics reports saying she was surrendering (first shot) and then fleeing (second shot in the back). 

In New Jersey, being an accomplice to murder is the same as murder. They did not need to prove she pulled the trigger. She was involved in many other crimes, some violent in nature. There is no reason anyone should view such a person as any kind of role model.

[mu_hilltopper]

Read the whole letter. Please. It's pretty damning.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/view?pli=1&sle=true

Wow, I'd never seen that doc.  It's great reading, and yes, damning.  No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.

Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?

[rocket surgeon]

This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.

Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.

now i am not as confused-thanks source.  i just found it hard to believe they would have been able to railroad assata right thru the system and into jail without some due process.  sounds like she had one of the first "dream team" of attorneys before there was such a thing.  curious to look up who they were-from wiki which does add a bit of it's own flavor, but gives us some idea of who these lawyers were

Defense attorneys[edit]

Lawyer William Kunstler was the chief of Shakur's defense staff.
Shakur's defense attorneys were William Kunstler (the chief of Shakur's defense staff),[128] Stuart Ball, Robert Bloom, Raymond A. Brown,[130] Stanley Cohen (who died of unknown causes early on in the Turnpike trial), Lennox Hinds, Florynce Kennedy, Louis Myers, Laurence Stern, and Evelyn Williams, Shakur's aunt.[73][128][131] Of these attorneys, Kunstler, Ball, Cohen, Myers, Stern and Williams appeared in court for the turnpike trial.[7][132] Kunstler became involved in Shakur's trials in 1975, when contacted by Williams, and commuted from New York City to New Brunswick every day with Stern.[133]

Her attorneys, in particular Lennox Hinds, were often held in contempt of court, which the National Conference of Black Lawyers cited as an example of systemic bias in the judicial system.[134] The New Jersey Legal Ethics Committee also investigated complaints against Hinds for comparing Shakur's murder trial to "legalized lynching"[135] undertaken by a "kangaroo court."[56][136] Hinds' disciplinary proceeding reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n (1982).[137] According to Kunstler's autobiography, the sizable contingent of New Jersey State Troopers guarding the courthouse were under strict orders from their commander, Col. Clinton Pagano, to completely shun Shakur's defense attorneys.[138]

Judge Appleby also threatened Kunstler with dismissal and contempt of court after he delivered an October 21, 1976 speech at nearby Rutgers University that in part discussed the upcoming trial,[139] but later ruled that Kunstler could represent Shakur.[140] Until obtaining a court order, Williams was forced to strip naked and undergo a body search before each of her visits with Shakur—during which Shakur was shackled to a bed by both ankles.[56] Judge Appleby also refused to investigate a burglary of her defense counsel's office that resulted in the disappearance of trial documents,[129] amounting to half of the legal papers related to her case.[141] Her lawyers also claimed that their offices were bugged.[76]

Tensions and dissension existed among the members of the defense team. Evelyn Williams felt that she was a victim of male prejudice stating that "for the second time in (her) legal career (she) became aware of the disdain with which men perceive women." She expressed "amazement and contempt" for the actions of her fellow lawyers as she watched their "infighting for center stage" during the trial. Other members of the team were concerned that Williams was overly aggressive during her sole cross-examination to the point of passing her notes that read, in part, "You're antagonizing the jury" and "Shut up and sit down."[142]

[Tugg Speedman]

now i am not as confused-thanks source.  i just found it hard to believe they would have been able to railroad assata right thru the system and into jail without some due process.  sounds like she had one of the first "dream team" of attorneys before there was such a thing.  curious to look up who they were-from wiki which does add a bit of it's own flavor, but gives us some idea of who these lawyers were

Defense attorneys[edit]

Lawyer William Kunstler was the chief of Shakur's defense staff.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler

William Moses Kunstler (July 7, 1919 – September 4, 1995) was an American self-described "radical lawyer" and civil rights activist, known for his politically unpopular clients.[1] Kunstler was an active member of the National Lawyers Guild, a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the co-founder of the Law Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the "leading gathering place for radical lawyers in the country".[2]

Kunstler's defense of the "Chicago Seven" from 1969–1970 led The New York Times to label him "the country's most controversial and, perhaps, its best-known lawyer ..."[2] Kunstler is also well known for defending members of the Catonsville Nine, Black Panther Party, Weather Underground Organization, the Attica Prison rioters, and the American Indian Movement.[2] He also won a de facto segregation case regarding the District of Columbia's public schools and "disinterred, singlehandedly" the concept of federal removal jurisdiction in the 1960s.[2] Kunstler refused to defend right-wing groups such as the Minutemen, on the grounds that: "I only defend those whose goals I share. I'm not a lawyer for hire. I only defend those I love."[2]

He was a polarizing figure; many on the right wished to see him disbarred, while many on the left admired him as a "symbol of a certain kind of radical lawyer."[2] Even some other civil rights lawyers regarded Kunstler as a "publicity hound and a hit-and-run lawyer" who "brings cases on Page 1 and wins them on Page 68."[2] Legal writer Sidney Zion quipped that Kunstler was "one of the few lawyers in town who knows how to talk to the press. His stories always check out and he's not afraid to talk to you, and he's got credibility—although you've got to ask sometimes, 'Bill, is it really true?'"[2]

[Jay Bee]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler

William Moses Kunstler

Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?

[MUfan12]

Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?

Or at least a drawing, a'ina?

[keefe]

Or at least a drawing, a'ina?

I think you can purchase that textbook at the Marquette Book Store in the Coloring Book Section

[rocket surgeon]

Could we get a pronunciation on this dude's name?

let's see here, one that hustles....

he must be a decendant of pimps, gigolos and/or gynecologists? 

[jsglow]

Wow, I'd never seen that doc.  It's great reading, and yes, damning.  No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.

Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?

Topper, might I ask you a favor?  Do you really want scoop to be the place where private internal communications from Marquette see the light of day?  I'm just thinking that the amount of second guessing here while a process unfolds might not be healthy for us or the university.  We're all supposed to be on the same team.  I'm sure you wouldn't support having Wojo's playbook published.  Just a thought.  Please consider it.

[GGGG]

Topper, might I ask you a favor?  Do you really want scoop to be the place where private internal communications from Marquette see the light of day?  I'm just thinking that the amount of second guessing here while a process unfolds might not be healthy for us or the university.  We're all supposed to be on the same team.  I'm sure you wouldn't support having Wojo's playbook published.  Just a thought.  Please consider it.

glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog.  It is basically a public document.

[jsglow]

glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog.  It is basically a public document.

I'm not saying it's not out there or that this is the first place it can be seen but I do think that to interject ourselves this deeply might be a bit out of bounds.  You all know that letter to the Provost among others that appears earlier in this thread?  It was published on scoop before she had even seen it.  That can't be in everyone's interest.  Some discretion here fellas.  Thanks.

[warriorchick]

glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog.  It is basically a public document.

Kind of surprised McAdams shared it. I don't think it supports his position at all.

[4everwarriors]

Let freedom ring, ai na?

[Tugg Speedman]

Kind of surprised McAdams shared it. I don't think it supports his position at all.

It's part of his openness

[Pakuni]

It's part of his openness

It's part of his hubris.

[mu_hilltopper]

glow, I pulled that link right off of McAdams' own blog.  It is basically a public document.

Bingo, glow.  Regardless of whether Scoop has the link or not .. McAdams published it on the internet. 

Frankly, if I were MU, I'd want that document public, too.  Most reasonable people would read it and agree, instead of throwing MU under the bus.

[Benny B]

In New Jersey, being an accomplice to murder is the same as murder. They did not need to prove she pulled the trigger. She was involved in many other crimes, some violent in nature. There is no reason anyone should view such a person as any kind of role model.

Plus she fled.  I get the whole "I'm innocent but I had to run because the cops would have railroaded me" argument, but if there was any evidence to exonerate her (or even the slightest hint of a miscarriage of justice), don't you think the Innocence Project or some analogue would have taken up her case by now?  At the very least, she should have made some sort of concerted effort to demonstrate her innocence instead of fleeing.  Heck, ask most Millenials about the "Black Panthers," and they'll think you're talking about the players for Carolina's NFL team who aren't white... nobody's looking to "pin" anything on a bunch of 60's/70's-era rebels today just because they associated with a group.  Come home, face the music; if you're innocent, demonstrate it; do your time for fleeing, and get on with your life.

Unless you know you're guilty, then stay in Cuba... we'll see you in about 5-10 years when US/Cuban relations are restored (complete with an extradition treaty).

[Pakuni]

Wow, I'd never seen that doc.  It's great reading, and yes, damning.  No wonder they kicked McAdams off campus.

Curious, has the name of the student ever been outed?

Not that I know of. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be unearthed with some effort, but I haven't tried.

[Benny B]

Not that I know of. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be unearthed with some effort, but I haven't tried.

Just a guess here, but while "outing" a TA may be professionally despicable, "outing" a student is probably illegal.

[Pakuni]

Just a guess here, but while "outing" a TA may be professionally despicable, "outing" a student is probably illegal.

Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.

[GGGG]

Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.

But please...don't do that.   

[Benny B]

Depends who does the outing.
If someone fellow student posted the kid's name here later today, it wouldn't be illegal.
If Marquette University published the kid's name, it probably would violate some privacy law or another.

Does it have to be the University itself?  Isn't anyone on MU's payroll or who represents the university in at least some sort of formal capacity (e.g. trustees) subject to FERPA (or similar privacy laws)?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Bingo, glow.  Regardless of whether Scoop has the link or not .. McAdams published it on the internet. 

Frankly, if I were MU, I'd want that document public, too.  Most reasonable people would read it and agree, instead of throwing MU under the bus.

I'm not very confident in your last sentence there:  http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm not very confident in your last sentence there:  http://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/

From this link:

While there is some reason to question Holz's critique (as McAdams does on his blog), none of that debate is relevant to the attempt to fire McAdams. Abbate was not a student of McAdams, and he was under no obligation to choose more private criticism of her teaching methods. Nor did McAdams have any obligation to contact everyone involved for comment before writing a blog post.

One can conclude that McAdams is a terrible journalist, and a terrible person, and that changes nothing about the threat of academic freedom created by this dismissal, and the lack of any basis for it under Marquette's policies.

McAdams' blog is a classic example of extramural utterances. McAdams' blog is not part of his teaching or his research. It is an expression of his own opinions.

Holz's letter declares: "faculty members have voiced concerns about how they could become targets in your blog based upon items they might choose to include in a class syllabus. Your conduct thus impairs the very freedoms of teaching and expression that you vehemently purport to promote. Again, the AAUP has called upon University governing boards and administration to exercise their 'special duty not only to set an outstanding example of tolerance, but also to challenge boldly and condemn immediately serious breaches of civility.'"

This is a complete distortion of the AAUP's statements. Tolerance requires that a university not fire professors for their expression. Marquette is perfectly free to condemn McAdams for an alleged breach of civility, but not to punish him. And although some faculty might legitimately fear being criticized by McAdams, no one has a right to be free from criticism, or to punish McAdams for their own decision to self-censor.

Holz's letter emphasizes one section of Marquette's statement on academic freedom, that a professor "should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others." The AAUP has made clear that its statement that professors "should" be accurate is moral exhortation, not an enforceable standard for punishment. Obviously, if any professor could be fired for any kind of alleged inaccuracy in any sentence, public or private, then tenure would be meaningless.

Marquette's policy on academic freedom also declares about a professor, "When he/she speaks or writes as a citizen, he/she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline." Marquette cannot invoke a distorted interpretation of its academic freedom policy to justify firing a professor and then ignore the clear prohibition on doing so in the same policy.

Section 306 of Marquette's policy, which details the reasons to fire a professor, explicitly declares: "In no case, however, shall discretionary cause be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action."

And Section 307.07.2 declares, "Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution."

These policies explicitly prohibit the punishment of John McAdams for his extramural utterances. Marquette's decision to fire McAdams, like its earlier decision to suspend him, is a violation of the AAUP's standards for academic freedom and Marquette's requirements in its policies.