Lovell releases new statement re: McAdams

[ChicosBailBonds]

I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.

I don't understand this.  By going to Twitter, you make it much more than the MU community.  In fact, when you "blast press releases", you can contain who sees it by sending it to the outlets you want to.  Only Milwaukee news, for example.   On Twitter, open to all.  Yes, you are targeting those that follow you, but that isn't just the Marquette community.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Also, the worst part is some of these people blindly follow McAdams like some of you here. They don't even know what the girl looks like (asking for a picture) and are still pursuing making her life a living hell.

What if this happened to your daughter. You'd be pretty pissed off and want an apology too, so no more with the BS excuses.

We live in such a divided, angry and selfish country, I'm just tired of it man, just honestly so tired. It's so hard to stay mad anymore, it's just exhausting.because I will bet you any damn amount of money, if that is your daughter you want that man fired. Guaranteed.

How do you feel about the student who was admonished and embarrassed by the instructor for having a different, Catholic, opinion?  Would you want the instructor fired for doing that to your son or daughter?

As for "selfish" country, divided, angry.....do you feel that way because half the country doesn't agree with you?  Would you like a place where everyone thinks and feels the same way? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.   I'd also ask you, is this country really selfish?  How do you define that?  I'd call it the most generous country in the world, but I suppose we all look at things differently.  Angry?  Sure, there's plenty of anger, and this example illustrates it well.  One student was embarrassed and admonished for having a Catholic opinion in class as a Catholic school.  Seems that's ok.  Well, to many of us it isn't.  The follow-up by Dr. McAdams, isn't ok...to some of you.  Again, we all have different opinions on how or what should have happened, and how excessive punishment should be.  That may exhaust you, but that doesn't make you or me any more right on the situation.

[GGGG]

The AAUP would disagree with you assessment.

https://academeblog.org/2015/02/04/marquette-to-fire-john-mcadams-for-his-blog/

https://academeblog.org/2015/01/26/aaup-letter-to-marquette-on-john-mcadams/

I know and I don't care.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not going relegislate the whole affair, but the way you characterize the originating event is an exaggeration at best.

The TA's conduct was far from ideal but there were plenty of options to resolve that issue and I fully believe that Lovell would have supported the undergrad student in those options should it have come to that.

One can support the TA and support the undergrad at the same time....they aren't mutually exclusive actions.

True....and in the same vein, there are "plenty of options to resolve" this issue as well, without the path that Lovell is taking.

Let me ask a question of all of those here that are bashing McAdams, should Lovell demand the TA also publicly apologize for her role in all of this?  How about the student that recorded the conversation?

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU is so so so bad at PR.  Just brutal.

[muwarrior69]

You should put up a screen shot of the MU alumni from Twitter that don't feel the same way.

Here is a link that some Professors and students feel threatened if they defend Catholic teaching at MU. Why doesn't MU apply for the Title IX exemption? What are they afraid of? After all they claim to be Catholic University.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-identity-vs.-catholic-identity-face-off-after-title-xi-expansions

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

You should put up a screen shot of the MU alumni from Twitter that don't feel the same way.

Well they don't attend marquette anymore,  or had Lovell as a president do they?

[GGGG]

MU is so so so bad at PR.  Just brutal.

Actually on balance this seems to have been very well received by the reactions on social media, etc.

[warriorchick]

True....and in the same vein, there are "plenty of options to resolve" this issue as well, without the path that Lovell is taking.

Let me ask a question of all of those here that are bashing McAdams, should Lovell demand the TA also publicly apologize for her role in all of this?  How about the student that recorded the conversation?

They don't need to publicly apologize because they didn't take this situation public.

Should all students who make mistakes in the course of their education make public apologies?

[4everwarriors]

Drudge had da story up for all ta see a couple of daze ago, hey?

[mu03eng]

How would he accomplish that?

Well if the undergrad had chosen to follow the normal path of escalation within the university before running to McAdams on the first sign of resistance, Lovell might have had a chance to support the student without you even knowing about it.

And do you know that Lovell has not supported the undergrad in any way? Perhaps he worked with the undergrad in private because he was not outed in public unlike the TA.

[keefe]

I disagree with you here Crash. I have no issue with Lovell's actions on twitter, he's advocating for the university and their viewpoint, which has often has been missing from Marquette. Additionally, it's twitter...the only people that are likely paying attention to Lovell on twitter are members of the MU community and so this is about communicating within the family as to why MU is taking the stance they are and responding to McAdams childish behavior. Lovell is erring on the side of students, that I will always support 100%. We might have a different discussion if he was blasting press releases to the world, but he's not.

Quite frankly I think you are practicing the type of hyperbole that landed McAdams in the position he's currently in. Even if I think Lovell could have handled this differently, it is far from embarrassing. Lovell has stepped into a power vacuum at Marquette and has had to address a number of issues within the university that were not of his making and I think he has done so with energy and a steady hand. There is a lot more good currently and in the future going on at Marquette then in the previous 4 or 5 years. McAdams has acted as a bully against the TA as well as the university, I have zero issue with calling a bully out on the carpet.

We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.

Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.

As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.

Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.

[jficke13]

I honestly wonder how much outside of a few MU alums and particularly enthused political commentators that people are noticing this. I feel like it's dragged on for so long that nobody cares any more.

[GGGG]

We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.

Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.

As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.

Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.

Running a modern day University is much different than running an Air Force squadron.  Just look at the news over the past year and you can see leadership failures born out of "it's my decision and I don't owe you an explanation" line of thinking.

The USAF has damn good reasons why it does what it does.  It cannot be applied to a University which are much different organizations. 

[keefe]

How a University chief executive responds to issues like this is much, much different than it was 10-20 years ago.  Oftentimes you can't simply afford to be "above the fray."  You are a leader of a community and oftentimes the time is right for leaders to speak out.

I have said this before, but Lovell is representative of a much more modern president.  My guess is that his background as a public university dean and chancellor leads him to be much more open then the Marquette community is used to.

That being said, I have no idea if the time was right at this point.  I don't know what is happening on-campus or in Milwaukee to prompt this response.  Lovell has made sounds decisions to date as a campus leader.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is making the right one here.

At the end of the day this is about Marquette. My issue with Lovell is that by re-engaging on this subject only serves to keep the negative light on Marquette.

Lovell said all that needed to be said when he announced his decision on the matter.

My point is really quite simple: what did Lovell hope to accomplish by reopening the dialogue? If you can answer that question I would love to understand your view. Frankly, if one models out the derivative outcomes there is no positive end game in all of this for the only constituency that matters which is Marquette University.

[mu03eng]

We are in complete agreement that what McAdams did was not just wrong but, in certain ways, reprehensible. So that isn't the point of departure for us.

Authority is a damned important aspect of the running of a fair, just, safe, and efficient organization. A crucial lesson that is taught in the Air Force Command Course, the schoolhouse every USAF officer selected for squadron command must attend, is that authority is vested and absolute. And one ought not ever explain or justify authority or its use.

As a commander I held an NJP hearing. After passing judgment the Airman asked if I could explain my decision. I told him he could ask and that I while I could explain it I would not.

Mike Lovell rendered a decision. Stand by it and move on. He is the University President. He needn't have to justify his decisions. Responding to a bully only serves to legitimize the bully.

I understand your frame of reference, but respectfully disagree that the reference is valid for the circumstance. Marquette for too long has let others craft the narrative within the public space, what Lovell is doing is framing the narrative for Marquette. MU didn't pick the fight in public but I fully support them finishing the fight in public.

You're example involves individuals who are trained and educated to respect the chain of command and recognize the absolute authority of rank. Lovell is leading a bunch of coddled professors, students trying to find their way in the world, and an alumni base that is generally leery of MU's leadership in the last decade. Not to mention a public audience that is predisposed to assume MU is in the wrong. The situations simply aren't comparable. Apple vs FBI is a much more relevant frame of reference if we're looking for something to compare.

[jsglow]

What I find somewhat interesting is that with a given set of actual facts that are pretty much universally accepted,  folks have very different but largely set in stone positions on the matter.  I also find it curious that there's some mixing of historical political viewpoints on both sides. As an example,  chick and I more closely align with McAdams political views but we're here arguing on the side that assumed to be leftist. Anyway,  back to the Markus surveillance for me. 

[GGGG]

At the end of the day this is about Marquette. My issue with Lovell is that by re-engaging on this subject only serves to keep the negative light on Marquette.

Lovell said all that needed to be said when he announced his decision on the matter.

My point is really quite simple: what did Lovell hope to accomplish by reopening the dialogue? If you can answer that question I would love to understand your view. Frankly, if one models out the derivative outcomes there is no positive end game in all of this for the only constituency that matters which is Marquette University.

My *guess,* and I have no idea if this is accurate, is that he was hearing from constituents (students, employees, trustees, et. al.) wondering about the addition of a letter of apology.  When McAdams said "when hell freezes over," he decided it was best to address the "whys" of his decision.

And I understand this.  You can't just sit back and let McAdams make all the public pronouncements and act above it all.  That doesn't work these days because it can snowball on you.  It makes you look tone deaf and indecisive.  People by and large *want* to hear from the chief executive on issues like this. 

This is exactly the situation that got Missouri's president fired in the BLM movement.  Not getting into the politics of that, but his silence was ridiculed as lack of leadership.  Not that this was going to rise to that level, but this is why leaders need to speak at times.

In looking over the initial, public reactions to it, I would judge that it was largely successful.  Whether or not that will satisfy Marquette's constituents as a whole, I don't know.  Time will tell.

[muwarrior69]

Well if the undergrad had chosen to follow the normal path of escalation within the university before running to McAdams on the first sign of resistance, Lovell might have had a chance to support the student without you even knowing about it.

And do you know that Lovell has not supported the undergrad in any way? Perhaps he worked with the undergrad in private because he was not outed in public unlike the TA.

What is the normal path of escalation?  How quickly would the issue be resolved? Would he actually have a face to face with Lovell? Are you telling me that Lovell would have allowed the student to discuss gay/vs traditional marriage in the classroom like he wanted to, or not? Of course this would all be done in private so we would never really know if a student's right to express a differing opinion than the one held by a Professor/TA/student in class is MU policy. I find it rather hard to believe that this issue would be resolved at the President level.

[warriorchick]

I honestly wonder how much outside of a few MU alums and particularly enthused political commentators that people are noticing this. I feel like it's dragged on for so long that nobody cares any more.

I have gotten several emails from my parents about this.  If you watch Fox News (which I no longer do), you can't avoid it.

And I have seen comments on the parents board that all but said that they would have not sent their kid to Marquette if this incidence had taken place before they were enrolled.   So who knows how this affected the decisions of incoming freshmen?

[keefe]

Running a modern day University is much different than running an Air Force squadron.  Just look at the news over the past year and you can see leadership failures born out of "it's my decision and I don't owe you an explanation" line of thinking.

The USAF has damn good reasons why it does what it does.  It cannot be applied to a University which are much different organizations.

In total I agree that the key drivers are different between a war fighting org and an educational enterprise. But that isn't the point here; this is about effects.

Lovell made a decision. Move on. Unless the decision was flawed. Or that he did not explain it properly in the first place. Or that he had some strange compulsion to continue the narrative?

Perhaps I was not clear in my NJP example: I explained my decision completely to the Airman in question. I articulated perfectly to the young man what the problem was, how it was counter to the USAF culture, and what the punishment would be. My decision was based in fact and was outlined clearly for him.

When he began to question the decision I had zero reason to engage in discussion any further. I had told him everything he needed to know. I did not need to justify my decision to that Airman. And he had no right to question the authority of an Air Force squadron commander because that authority is vested in a commander by the Congress of the United States.

Mike Lovell said all that needed to be said when he issued his decision. Why he felt the need to continue the narrative is the issue because, at the end of the day, he is not doing right by the institution and constituencies that vested authority in him to serve its interests to the best of his ability.


 

[GGGG]

nm

[mu03eng]

What is the normal path of escalation?  How quickly would the issue be resolved? Would he actually have a face to face with Lovell? Are you telling me that Lovell would have allowed the student to discuss gay/vs traditional marriage in the classroom like he wanted to, or not? Of course this would all be done in private so we would never really know if a student's right to express a differing opinion than the one held by a Professor/TA/student in class is MU policy. I find it rather hard to believe that this issue would be resolved at the President level.

I honestly can't say I know all the procedures and policies that MU has around resolving an issue such as this, but I do know that the escalation path was short circuited when the student went to McAdams early in the process and McAdams chose his action.

It is a possibility that this gets resolved successfully even if it doesn't get to the presidential level. And going to someone like McAdams to escalate is always an option latter after other choices were exhausted.

Lastly, the way the TA handled the discussion was not good, but there was no suppression of thought within the classroom. I'm comfortable with the decision that the topic was not appropriate for the discussion at the time, I am uncomfortable with how the TA handled expressing that decision.

IMO, those who decry this as a suppression of free speech are looking for a wedge issue, not a resolution.

[mu03eng]

In total I agree that the key drivers are different between a war fighting org and an educational enterprise. But that isn't the point here; this is about effects.

Lovell made a decision. Move on. Unless the decision was flawed. Or that he did not explain it properly in the first place. Or that he had some strange compulsion to continue the narrative?

Perhaps I was not clear in my NJP example: I explained my decision completely to the Airman in question. I articulated perfectly to the young man what the problem was, how it was counter to the USAF culture, and what the punishment would be. My decision was based in fact and was outlined clearly for him.

When he began to question the decision I had zero reason to engage in discussion any further. I had told him everything he needed to know. I did not need to justify my decision to that Airman. And he had no right to question the authority of an Air Force squadron commander because that authority is vested in a commander by the Congress of the United States.

Mike Lovell said all that needed to be said when he issued his decision. Why he felt the need to continue the narrative is the issue because, at the end of the day, he is not doing right by the institution and constituencies that vested authority in him to serve its interests to the best of his ability.

Was their a crowd of various people with lots of different opinions that can impact your squadron (withhold funding, defer maintenance, choose to not transfer in, etc) who were only hearing that airman's complaint regarding the unfairness of your decision?

[keefe]

My *guess,* and I have no idea if this is accurate, is that he was hearing from constituents (students, employees, trustees, et. al.) wondering about the addition of a letter of apology.  When McAdams said "when hell freezes over," he decided it was best to address the "whys" of his decision.

And I understand this.  You can't just sit back and let McAdams make all the public pronouncements and act above it all.  That doesn't work these days because it can snowball on you.  It makes you look tone deaf and indecisive.  People by and large *want* to hear from the chief executive on issues like this. 

This is exactly the situation that got Missouri's president fired in the BLM movement.  Not getting into the politics of that, but his silence was ridiculed as lack of leadership.  Not that this was going to rise to that level, but this is why leaders need to speak at times.

In looking over the initial, public reactions to it, I would judge that it was largely successful.  Whether or not that will satisfy Marquette's constituents as a whole, I don't know.  Time will tell.

I don't think we are that far apart. And I will admit that I might not have perfect optics on this as I am not back in Milwaukee.

As a principle, I think that decision-making is an imprecise science. In both the military and the corporate world I have been asked to make decisions and as much I would care to say that I had absolute empiricism the opposite is usually the case.

In the general I think Lovell should move on. What I can't say is that, in the particular, if there are extenuating circumstances requiring elaboration or amplification.