Lovell releases new statement re: McAdams

[warriorchick]

He called out a graduate student \ instructor

MU's written policies about this are crystal clear.  Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second.  And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions.  He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.

[4everwarriors]

Luckily, I live and work in the real world.

Bottled water delivery will never be replaced by a robot, hey?

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU's written policies about this are crystal clear.  Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second.  And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions.  He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.

That may be the case, but they are still both....whenever someone keeps saying they are ONLY students, they are being disingenious.  I get what you are saying, in terms of the priority order, and that is all fine and good.  But to read some comments on here you would think this person was a student only, which is wholly not the case.

[keefe]

If you spend 30 seconds looking at his blog, you can very clearly see McAdams' audience is not just himself. It is his own soapbox for which he attempts to play Socratic gadfly to Marquette. It is not a private journal by any stretch of the imagination.

Coleman

I don't disagree that his blog is his own personal corner of Hyde Park. That wasn't my point; rather, I am asking if McAdams, or any member of the Marquette community, is entitled to their own personal corner of Hyde Park.

I am a big fan of TJ. And I have to think that, as the man who founded UVA, he would want a guy like McAdams to have that piece of Hyde Park.

I don't respect what McAdams said or how he said it. But like Voltaire I respect his right to say it.And I am convinced Tom Jefferson would agree with that.

[keefe]

MU's written policies about this are crystal clear.  Student teachers are considered students first and teachers second.  And McAdams had already been called on the carpet over similar transgressions.  He can't even rightfully claim that he was unaware of the policy or had misinterpreted it.

Chick

Let's extrapolate from the McAdams case. Marquette didn't like what the man wrote in his free time on his own little piece of the interwebs. So they have taken disciplinary action against him.

Marquette hires Jodi O'Brien as its Dean of the Liberal Arts College. Then, ex post facto, they take a hard look at what she has written, legitimate academic research,  and rescind their offer of employment.

I don't agree with what McAdams said or why he said it. I might not even agree with O'Brien's works (as I have not read them.)

But I am disturbed that Marquette has established a pattern of behavior that seems to circumscribe what people can and cannot say.

The real issue here is not John McAdams' actions or Jodi O'Brien's writings. It is Marquette's institutional behavior that is under scrutiny. As I have said, I have withheld giving to Marquette until I rinse the bile from all of this out of my mouth. I am concerned deeply about Marquette's behavior.

[GGGG]

Chick

Let's extrapolate from the McAdams case. Marquette didn't like what the man wrote in his free time on his own little piece of the interwebs. So they have taken disciplinary action against him.

You're smarter than that.  It was about what he said where he called out a graduate student teaching a class without getting all the facts.  He was all about making a political point at the expense of a graduate student.  A student who left Marquette because of the backlash against her.  He was a bully. 

This had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" so you can drop the Thomas Jefferson references.

The O'Brien stuff I agree with you on.  That was the archbishop and some donors raising a stink about something.  They should not have let that sway them.

[keefe]

I thought going after interns is a good thing.....

It is for some cigar smokers.

[keefe]

I really enjoy chatting with you keefe. I can't easily read all this on my phone but will as time permits.  I'm sure you thoroughly enjoyed that Col getting his butt tanned.

He never spoke with me again for the balance of our time at Al Asad. I would see him occasionally in the DFAC and he would give me the stink eye which I guess he thought was going to ruin my day.

He was a non-flyer and those guys typically have a complex about pilots. He was also a fat boy and had jowls and I know that he became known within the flying Wing as "The River Pig."

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is for some cigar smokers.

Vaginal humidor

[keefe]

You're smarter than that.  It was about what he said where he called out a graduate student teaching a class without getting all the facts.  He was all about making a political point at the expense of a graduate student.  A student who left Marquette because of the backlash against her.  He was a bully. 

This had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" so you can drop the Thomas Jefferson references.

The O'Brien stuff I agree with you on.  That was the archbishop and some donors raising a stink about something.  They should not have let that sway them.

I won't drop the Jefferson references because this is very much a question of liberty.

Let me ask where that line is? If I am with GE and I have a blog in which I rant and rave about nuclear power, coal power, or diesel - major customers of GE Power Systems - could GE fire me for cause?

As I said - I do not agree with the content of what McAdams did or how he did it. That isn't the issue. The real issue is whether or not an employer has the right to terminate an employee for speaking their mind anywhere outside of  the workplace.

If McAdams went to a bar and railed about this issue could be be fired for that? If he got a soapbox out in Speaker's Corner and said the same thing verbatim could he be terminated?

We agree that the O'Brien case is egregious. Frankly, it is the only time I have been ashamed of my Marquette diploma.

So, how is the O'Brien case different than the McAdams matter? In my mind they are inextricably connected. And I hate how I feel about Marquette for that.

[GGGG]

If I went online and criticized a student in a public forum, while naming the student, I would be disciplined.  If I did the same with a co-worker, I would be disciplined.  You would too.

If we did it at a bar, and someone recorded it and sent it to our supervisors, we would be disciplined.  If either of us did it repeatedly, we would be fired. 

[keefe]

If I went online and criticized a student in a public forum, while naming the student, I would be disciplined.  If I did the same with a co-worker, I would be disciplined.  You would too.

If we did it at a bar, and someone recorded it and sent it to our supervisors, we would be disciplined.  If either of us did it repeatedly, we would be fired.

You didn't answer the question about how the McAdams case is different from O'Brien's.

We agree that what McAdams said and did was inappropriate. We agree that Marquette's handling of the O'Brien hire was egregious.

But how are the two different?

I will tell you this - GE could not and would not discipline me or try to terminate me for posting my personal thoughts on line. The hook GE has is the Spirit and Intent Compliance Policy but that does not prevent me nor does it give GE the right to terminate me for doing what McAdams did.

What they would do is make my professional life a living hell through a series of subtle mechanisms that would frustrate me to the point  I would say enough and pull the ejection handle. GE is much too clever, more wealthy, and far more patient than any single individual employee.     

Marquette could have played this very differently. Fact is they did not.

[GGGG]

You didn't answer the question about how the McAdams case is different from O'Brien's.

We agree that what McAdams said and did was inappropriate. We agree that Marquette's handling of the O'Brien hire was egregious.

But how are the two different?

McAdams dealt with a workplace violation.  One that he was warned about previously.  O'Brien's did not.

[keefe]

McAdams dealt with a workplace violation.  One that he was warned about previously.  O'Brien's did not.

McAdams wrote something on the interwebs from the sanctity of his own home through his own router from his personal box.

I was a GE Cap employee when Gary Wendt was Cap's Chairman. If I am sitting in my home and accessing the interwebs through a personal device and posted on a blog that Wendt was an incompetent fool GE would not fire me. They would make my life difficult but they could not have fired me.

If I was sitting in my Shibuya office on the GE network and did the same they would discipline me - not for writing what I did  - but for a misuse of corporate property.

Perhaps there is a difference between rules of governance between the corporate world and academia. But I will assert that GE Cap would not fire an employee for posting what McAdams did on a personal blog.

Again, you have not explained the difference between the O'Brien case and the McAdams matter. You are trying to differentiate on context. The question is were they not both the target of adverse actions by Marquette for what they wrote?
 

[GGGG]

I have answered your question as to why they are different.  You simply don't accept my response.

[rocket surgeon]

" 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."


keep in mind, the rest of the nation only has bits and pieces of the info that we are talking about.  one side that wants to believe MU will do so based on their filters and the other side will do the same.  in the end, MU looks out of line because in order to take sides with the university, you need to understand the nuances we are discussing.  it's easier and more succinct to question why/how MU fired a tenured professor over a freedom of speech issue.  therefore, unless MU wants to put forth a vigorous PR campaign, mccadams wins

[keefe]

I have answered your question as to why they are different.  You simply don't accept my response.

And you did not answer my question.

Both McAdams and O'Brien were the subject of an adverse employment action by Marquette University. Marquette took that action because of what each of those persons wrote outside of Marquette University.

O'Brien's work did not mention Marquette University (as far as I know) but McAdams' did. But as I pointed out, a GE Cap employee doing the same thing could not be disciplined. More importantly, GE Cap would never try to discipline an employee for that. GE is much too clever and savvy to handle it in the way Marquette University did.

Here is the irony: Marquette had every right to rescind its job offer to O'Brien without so much as a by your leave. McAdams case against Marquette is the stronger of the two, actually.

So, how do you differentiate between the two cases? 

[GGGG]

O'Brien did nothing wrong.

McAdams did.

[keefe]

" 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."


keep in mind, the rest of the nation only has bits and pieces of the info that we are talking about.  one side that wants to believe MU will do so based on their filters and the other side will do the same.  in the end, MU looks out of line because in order to take sides with the university, you need to understand the nuances we are discussing.  it's easier and more succinct to question why/how MU fired a tenured professor over a freedom of speech issue.  therefore, unless MU wants to put forth a vigorous PR campaign, mccadams wins

People here have lobbed spears suggesting I have taken up in defense of what McAdams said and the manner in which he did it. I am not. I do not like what he did or how he did it.

My point is that Marquette mishandled the O'Brien and McAdams cases. Mishandled them badly. And at the end of the day Marquette ends up as the loser because, as you point out correctly, people do not know or care about the nuances.

Marquette University took adverse action against two employees and created a spectacle in doing so. Both events have reflected terribly on our alma mater.

I hope McAdams sues because employers cannot target people for speaking their minds, however reprehensible the message. And hopefully Marquette will use this as a teaching moment that will guide future decision making.

[keefe]

O'Brien did nothing wrong.

McAdams did.

What did McAdams do that was "wrong?"

[GGGG]

What did McAdams do that was "wrong?"

I have explained my POV on this issue countless times.  You don't agree with me.  No need to rehash.

[warriorchick]

I hope McAdams sues because employers cannot target people for speaking their minds, however reprehensible the message. And hopefully Marquette will use this as a teaching moment that will guide future decision making.

Please cite your source here, Keefe.  It is my understanding that unless it is legally protected activity such as unionizing or whistleblowing, an employer can most certainly punish an employee for speaking negatively about the company or other employees in a public forum.

[keefe]

Please cite your source here, Keefe.  It is my understanding that unless it is legally protected activity such as unionizing or whistleblowing, an employer can most certainly punish an employee for speaking negatively about the company or other employees in a public forum.

I was the COO for a GE Cap biz in Japan. The Compliance team reported in to me. GE employees are governed by the GE Spirit & Intent program.

If a GE employee stands on the sidewalk outside Mark City in Shibuya (or anywhere else in the world including Fairfield) and bad mouths the company, Jack Welch, Jeff Immelt, or Thomas Edison you can't fire him.

But if on company time he uses the GE network and GE assets to surf smut, post on a personal blog, or troll on MU Scoop one can take disciplinary action - NOT for what he posts on a personal blog or MU Scoop but for misusing corporate assets and for dicking off on duty.

The only content you can hammer someone for is if they disclose trade secrets, corporate IP, communications considered internal, etc...

Guy writing in a personal blog that Jeff Immelt is a prick can not be subject to adverse personnel action. Guy writing in a personal blog that GE Power is signing a deal with Genesis Energy will get fired. 

McAdams expressed an opinion. He did not disclose any trade secrets or cause irreparable competitive disadvantage to the enterprise. GE would not and should not fire a person for speaking their mind.

I would invite you to look into the range of social media around the Microsoft, Amazon, f5, etc... ecosystems and look at what is said there. What McAdams did was nothing compared to what the tech industry not only expects but actively encourages.


This reminds me of when I was with GE in Japan. In those pre-Scoop days, after the Dodds coup d'etat that toppled Mike Juno, I used to surf Dodds' site during the work day in Tokyo. I would post irreverent comments, especially about Tanned Tommy, which drove Dodds and Uncle John crazy.

Dodds would no sooner ban me than I would come back under a different nom d'guerre. This triggered rampant speculation, especially from that idiot Uncle John, who surmised that I was some guy working the third shift in a utility based on the times I was posting (mid-day in Tokyo, of course) and the fact that the network had electric in its name (I guess Uncle Johnny never heard of General Electric...)   

Back to your question: GE could have disciplined me for surfing Dodds' site during work hours. They could not discipline me for anything I wrote but that I misused assets and was clearly screwing off during work hours.

[keefe]

I have answered your question as to why they are different.  You simply don't accept my response.

Actually, your response is obtuse and oblique. I expected greater intellectual courage from you, Sultan. You are normally more willing to engage in healthy discourse.

[MUsoxfan]

I was the COO for a GE Cap biz in Japan. The Compliance team reported in to me. GE employees are governed by the GE Spirit & Intent program.

If a GE employee stands on the sidewalk outside Mark City in Shibuya (or anywhere else in the world including Fairfield) and bad mouths the company, Jack Welch, Jeff Immelt, or Thomas Edison you can't fire him.

But if on company time he uses the GE network and GE assets to surf smut, post on a personal blog, or troll on MU Scoop one can take disciplinary action - NOT for what he posts on a personal blog or MU Scoop but for misusing corporate assets and for dicking off on duty.

The only content you can hammer someone for is if they disclose trade secrets, corporate IP, communications considered internal, etc...

Guy writing in a personal blog that Jeff Immelt is a prick can not be subject to adverse personnel action. Guy writing in a personal blog that GE Power is signing a deal with Genesis Energy will get fired. 

McAdams expressed an opinion. He did not disclose any trade secrets or cause irreparable competitive disadvantage to the enterprise. GE would not and should not fire a person for speaking their mind.

I would invite you to look into the range of social media around the Microsoft, Amazon, f5, etc... ecosystems and look at what is said there. What McAdams did was nothing compared to what the tech industry not only expects but actively encourages.


This reminds me of when I was with GE in Japan. In those pre-Scoop days, after the Dodds coup d'etat that toppled Mike Juno, I used to surf Dodds' site during the work day in Tokyo. I would post irreverent comments, especially about Tanned Tommy, which drove Dodds and Uncle John crazy.

Dodds would no sooner ban me than I would come back under a different nom d'guerre. This triggered rampant speculation, especially from that idiot Uncle John, who surmised that I was some guy working the third shift in a utility based on the times I was posting (mid-day in Tokyo, of course) and the fact that the network had electric in its name (I guess Uncle Johnny never heard of General Electric...)   

Back to your question: GE could have disciplined me for surfing Dodds' site during work hours. They could not discipline me for anything I wrote but that I misused assets and was clearly screwing off during work hours.

If I spoke badly of my employer in a public forum, I'd be terminated the day my employer found out.

I imagine that's the case for many, many people