Lovell releases new statement re: McAdams

[GGGG]

Perhaps I don't understand the dual status of teacher and student and how that negates authority and concomitant responsibility. I come from a world where chain of command and authority are unambiguous and absolute. If you have the authority you also carry the responsibility.

People say she was a student but, in fact, the issue at hand occurred when she was serving in her capacity as an instructor. And it specifically involved her interaction as the instructor of a student.

McAdams was not commenting on her classroom performance as a student but, rather, how she used her authority as an instructor.

She is a graduate student.  That is her status.  She isn't faculty member.  She isn't even an non-faculty academic staff hired to teach a class.  She is teaching as part of her financial package to attend the University.  (Does that legally make her an employee?  I assume so.)

In a University setting, faculty members are supposed to mentor students - even graduate students who are teaching.  Not call them out on their blog.  (And to do so wrecklessly BTW.)

That's why I am insistent that this isn't a "political correctness" issue.

[jsglow]

keefe,

you raise some interesting points here.  no doubt her performance as an instructor was worthy of correction by her superiors.  of course john wasn't in that chain of command.

tell me.  in a military situation let's say your commanding officer orders you to take a certain hill.  then on the battlefield some other officer redirects your mission based on the situation at hand.  your commanding officer simply can't be reached or is somehow outside the immediate loop.  what's your obligation?

[ChicosBailBonds]

She was a student AND teacher.  Paid \ compensated \ financial package to teach in addition to study.  To me, this is important and my argument from day one.  She was not merely a student.

[GGGG]

She was a student AND teacher.  Paid \ compensated \ financial package to teach in addition to study.  To me, this is important and my argument from day one.  She was not merely a student.

She is a student.  A graduate student who teaches, but a student.  Not only by Marquette's status, but by the status that the academy uses and has used for decades.

This isn't a debatable point.  Graduate students can teach...but they are still students.  Just like undergraduate students can be hired to tutor...but they are still students. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

She is a student.  A graduate student who teaches, but a student.  Not only by Marquette's status, but by the status that the academy uses and has used for decades.

This isn't a debatable point.  Graduate students can teach...but they are still students.  Just like undergraduate students can be hired to tutor...but they are still students.

Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class.  Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion.  The Buck stops there.

[keefe]

keefe,

you raise some interesting points here.  no doubt her performance as an instructor was worthy of correction by her superiors.  of course john wasn't in that chain of command.

tell me.  in a military situation let's say your commanding officer orders you to take a certain hill.  then on the battlefield some other officer redirects your mission based on the situation at hand.  your commanding officer simply can't be reached or is somehow outside the immediate loop.  what's your obligation?

Well, that is a very dry scenario in that there are many variables that would likely factor into the decision-making process. But using your scenario it would break down into two branches:

1. If the officer doing the redirect is subordinate to the same Commander who issued the original order then you follow.

2. If the officer is NOT in the chain of command then you have the right to exercise your best judgment.

Rank is one thing but chain of command is another. The military makes chain of command crystal clear through the use of OpOrds that spell out who is in overall command, who are the subordinated units, what are what is the objective, etc...

So if a party of TACPs embedded with a Ranger team are directed in an OpOrd to provide direct support for a ground maneuver force a Navy admiral could not simply redirect the team to another mission simply because he has seniority.


Extrapolating from this, McAdams had no authority over the grad student (not in her chain of command) and therefore could not discipline her for job performance. But McAdams was not disciplining her as he had no authority to do so.

It would have been particularly reprehensible had he commented publicly on a paper she wrote or research findings she presented as a student.

But McAdams was not commenting on her qualities as a student. He was commenting specifically about how she treated the undergraduate student, over whom she had grading authority, while performing her duties as an instructor.

People want to say she is a student but she is also an instructor.

Could McAdams have handled it better? Yes.

Should McAdams be disciplined for what he said? I honestly do not know but my esteem for Thomas Jefferson suggests not.

The irony is that while some would seek to politicize this case the fact is that both liberals and conservatives are coming down hard on Marquette for this incident. This has been terrible for McAdams in the near term but the longer term damage to Marquette is far greater.

[GGGG]

Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class.  Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion.  The Buck stops there.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.  She clearly is responsible for how she teaches.  She clearly can be judged and have her teaching skills evaluated.  She isn't above reproach.

What I am talking about is how McAdams handled the situation.  He was wrong to call her out on his blog.  It is his role as a faculty member, even if he isn't her supervisor, to mentor her.  He failed.

[Coleman]

Put someone in charge of a class- full professor, adjunct, grad student, Freeway- and that person is in charge of the class.  Now, the professor serving as the advisor to the grad student might have some responsibility here, but at the end of the day, the grad student is the one assigning work, grading tests and papers and leading class discussion.  The Buck stops there.

Not really, if you know anything about how academia works.

[jsglow]

Well, that is a very dry scenario in that there are many variables that would likely factor into the decision-making process. But using your scenario it would break down into two branches:

1. If the officer doing the redirect is subordinate to the same Commander who issued the original order then you follow.

2. If the officer is NOT in the chain of command then you have the right to exercise your best judgment.

Rank is one thing but chain of command is another. The military makes chain of command crystal clear through the use of OpOrds that spell out who is in overall command, who are the subordinated units, what are what is the objective, etc...

So if a party of TACPs embedded with a Ranger team are directed in an OpOrd to provide direct support for a ground maneuver force a Navy admiral could not simply redirect the team to another mission simply because he has seniority.


Extrapolating from this, McAdams had no authority over the grad student (not in her chain of command) and therefore could not discipline her for job performance. But McAdams was not disciplining her as he had no authority to do so.

It would have been particularly reprehensible had he commented publicly on a paper she wrote or research findings she presented as a student.

But McAdams was not commenting on her qualities as a student. He was commenting specifically about how she treated the undergraduate student, over whom she had grading authority, while performing her duties as an instructor.

People want to say she is a student but she is also an instructor.

Could McAdams have handled it better? Yes.

Should McAdams be disciplined for what he said? I honestly do not know but my esteem for Thomas Jefferson suggests not.

The irony is that while some would seek to politicize this case the fact is that both liberals and conservatives are coming down hard on Marquette for this incident. This has been terrible for McAdams in the near term but the longer term damage to Marquette is far greater.

See, this is good stuff and I think I agree with some of what you say here.  I am in agreement that 'chain of command' trumps 'rank', even in a business setting.

Let's say I run a department and have asked my subordinate to fulfill some objective.  My colleague in another department doesn't have the right to direct my subordinate to do something different even if he/she 'outranks' me.  The exception to this would be someone above me in my direct reporting chain.  And even then any decent boss would have the courtesy to call me, etc.  I'd argue that a totally unrelated 'officer' redirecting my employee would be subject to disciplinary action if the situation were serious enough.

Well, okay.  So does this 'unrelated officer' get to comment very publicly about the performance of my particular subordinate?  Or would that be totally out of line?  From where I sit it's totally out of line and McAdams is therefore worthy of sanction.  We can debate what that sanction should be. 

One more thing, this academic freedom argument is a complete red herring.  In my view nobody's academic freedom was in any way compromised.  Academic freedom in no way allows a professor to scream fire in a theater.   

[wadesworld]

No real winners in this situation.

The loser is the graduate student who was publicly bullied by a tenured faculty member who should know better.

McAdams is lucky. If he still has the gall to not issue an apology (which he is required to do or face termination), and then sue MU over this compromise, I will have lost any remaining shred of respect for him as a human being.

+1.

[Badgerhater]

I was a TA at Marquette.  My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.

From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.

From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.

I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following.  Marquette should be also.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.

[Badgerhater]

This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.

One can think that McAdams was wrong and that the university as a whole and a certain department in particular is also wrong. 

[wadesworld]

I was a TA at Marquette.  My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.

From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.

From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.

I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following.  Marquette should be also.

It was clearly a kid just trying to stir things up.  Good for her for realizing it and trying to move on from the discussion when it wasn't going to go anywhere productive.  Keep in mind that the kid dropped the class not because he felt his rights were violated, but because, by his own admission, he was rightfully receiving a failing grade in the class.

[Badgerhater]

+1.

The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.

[Badgerhater]

It was clearly a kid just trying to stir things up.  Good for her for realizing it and trying to move on from the discussion when it wasn't going to go anywhere productive.  Keep in mind that the kid dropped the class not because he felt his rights were violated, but because, by his own admission, he was rightfully receiving a failing grade in the class.

I also was a teacher in a public school before I was at Marquette and their are different and far and far more effective ways to shut things down than the way taken by that TA.

[GGGG]

This is an embarrassing commentary by the (former) Marquette student body. Just, wow...This isn't a free speech issue like you all say. He can say whatever he wants, and did. However, he has to accept the possible punishment by his employers if he crosses a line, which he obviously did. I stand with Lovell's original decision. Fire the man.

Marquette has procedures in place for the review of tenured faculty dismissal.  Lovell can't just "fire the man" without going through these procedures.

[GGGG]

I was a TA at Marquette.  My butt would have been in a sling from my supervising professor if I had treated an undergrad as did the TA in this situation.

From what I understand, the undergrad tried to take their complaint through the appropriate department and was rebuffed, he then took his case to McAdams.

From my perspective, if the department had taken care of the issue at its level, then McAdams would have had no reason to make a ruckus out of it.

I am more concerned about problems within a whole department than I am about a single professor with an internet following.  Marquette should be also.

McAdams had a reason and a right to "make a ruckus."  He exceeded the appropriateness of how he made that ruckus. 

[reinko]

The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.

[wadesworld]

I also was a teacher in a public school before I was at Marquette and their are different and far and far more effective ways to shut things down than the way taken by that TA.

I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA.  This is not a trained professor.  To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do.  She probably does not have her teaching license.  Etc.  As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.

[GGGG]

The real loser was the undergrad who lost their freedom to express an on-point and valid view in classroom setting.

The teacher didn't think it was either on-point or valid.  That is her right.

It was how she handled it afterwards that was a problem.

[GGGG]

I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA.  This is not a trained professor.  To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do.  She probably does not have her teaching license.  Etc.  As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.

Professors don't have much, if any, formal training in teaching in a classroom.

[keefe]

See, this is good stuff and I think I agree with some of what you say here.  I am in agreement that 'chain of command' trumps 'rank', even in a business setting.

Let's say I run a department and have asked my subordinate to fulfill some objective.  My colleague in another department doesn't have the right to direct my subordinate to do something different even if he/she 'outranks' me.  The exception to this would be someone above me in my direct reporting chain.  And even then any decent boss would have the courtesy to call me, etc.  I'd argue that a totally unrelated 'officer' redirecting my employee would be subject to disciplinary action if the situation were serious enough.

Well, okay.  So does this 'unrelated officer' get to comment very publicly about the performance of my particular subordinate?  Or would that be totally out of line?  From where I sit it's totally out of line and McAdams is therefore worthy of sanction.  We can debate what that sanction should be. 

One more thing, this academic freedom argument is a complete red herring.  In my view nobody's academic freedom was in any way compromised.  Academic freedom in no way allows a professor to scream fire in a theater.   

Glow,

Don't get me wrong: I believe McAdams exercised profoundly poor judgment in writing what he did. I think we both agree on that.
And I also believe we agree that the TA was wrong in how she addressed the student in her class. Furthermore, there is little doubt Marquette has the right to discipline McAdams per the employment agreement.

The real question is should Marquette discipline McAdams for what he did and in the manner in which they disciplined him?


When I was a squadron commander at Al Asad an NCO behaved incorrectly over the phone with an Air Force Colonel who was a non-flyer comms officer who had something to do with the IT backbone in Iraq. The Colonel had called directly into my squadron and was giving orders to this enlisted man over whom he had no operational or tactical control. The NCO, after repeatedly asking the Colonel to go through proper channels, finally swore at the Colonel.

I happened to be out flying when this took place but it was clearly something that needed to be addressed, even though we were fighting a war, because the Colonel was raising hell about it. When I got the Colonel on the line, at the time I was a Lt Col, he was demanding to know how I was going to discipline the NCO.

I told him directly that was my business and that I would indeed handle it correctly. But I told the Col that the only thing I wanted to talk to him about was why he felt he could violate chain of command and reach into my squadron and start giving orders which he had no authority to do. I told him the real issue here was not about the behavior of the NCO but of the Colonel.

He hung up on me and I immediately called the Wing Commander (a Brig Gen) and briefed him about the matter. The Col indeed got a hold of the Wing King who later told me that he put the Col in his place. 


If the NCO is the TA and exercised poor judgment then the squadron commander (her academic advisor) has the responsibility for exercising disciplinary action against her.

If McAdams is the Colonel he had no business getting mixed up in the squadron's chain of command. The Colonel should have never been on the phone with my NCO in the same way McAdams should not have been involved with the classroom matter in question.

The Wing Commander had every right to bring the Colonel up on charges. The Colonel violated the UCMJ in a couple ways. Instead, the Brig Gen took the Col aside and told him to stay out of his Wing's business. I am certain that if that Col so much as farted in any of the hangars there would have been repercussions.

It grieves me that my alma mater, an institution my wife and I have held dear, is once more thrust into the national spotlight.

I don't think we disagree that McAdams was wrong. I think the real loser in all of this is Marquette. McAdams will fade away soon enough - he has got to be in his 70s. But the whole nation will have this incident in the back of its collective mind. That is the real issue here.

[Badgerhater]

I have no doubt that's true, but again, this is a TA.  This is not a trained professor.  To be honest I haven't really read into her, but my guess is that she has no real training in the education field like teachers and professors do.  She probably does not have her teaching license.  Etc.  As has been said, mentoring her would've been a much more appropriate thing to do than publicly shaming her on a blog.

mentoring her was the responsibility of the professors in her department.

[Coleman]

I think very few people outside the MU community actually know or care about this, despite McAdams' petulant hissy fits on Fox News