Lovell releases new statement re: McAdams

[mu03eng]

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. 

I think this tends to break on whether you have historically sided with MU on controversial decisions or not. I think it's as simple as "Here MU goes again being ham handed and tone deaf" vs "MU is doing their best and is largely in the right here."

In my opinion anyway 

[mu03eng]

Sultan, I'm just going to let you type my responses for me in the rest of the thread. Say everything I want to say faster and better.

Now I can go back to my natural state of laziness. 

[keefe]

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?

Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.

Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.

But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.

It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.

Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.

[mu03eng]

Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.

Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.

But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.

It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.

Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think Lovell is standing by his decision and the twitter activity was to manage the public perception of their decision after McAdams "go to hell" message that was sure to fire up the typical $h!t stirrers. I suspect Lovell has accomplished his goal and will indeed move on now.

If he doesn't, I would definitely start to slide over into your camp.

[warriorchick]

Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.

Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.

But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.

It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.

Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.

I have posted a link to Dr. Lovell's comments in a couple of places and gotten tremendous positive response for putting it out there.  McAdams has had months to tell his side of the story, and MU has been muzzled because it was a personnel issue.   Even friends of mine who consider themselves very conservative side with the Administration now that they have Marquette's version of the story.

Not everything can and should be run like a military tribunal.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.

I tend to agree with you, but it is a new world right?  You should have seen how many responses were on facebook (pro & con) within minutes of the main MU site posting his response.  This was a targeted message to alumni using social media illustrating the ugly outcome of taking this person's name public.   

I don't know if it achieved its objective or not Keefe.  Time will tell huh?

[jficke13]

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?

That's really why I asked. I live in MKE and it doesn't really feel like it has much legs here outside of the AM talk radio crowd. It feels to me to only have legs in the spaces where people can use it further the "Conservatives Silenced on Campus" narrative. But I definitely could be mistaken.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

So they aren't part of the Marquette community?  They sure have no problem calling me every year asking for $$$$$.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation?  God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.

[GGGG]

Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation?  God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.

The student was not cut off in front of class.  The entire incident occurred after class.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html

"The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class."


And I will state once again that Abatte was wrong in how she handled this situation.

[warriorchick]

Fair point....let me ask (I don't know)....Did she apologize in front of the class to the student she cut off and everyone that was there for his humiliation?  God forbid he spoke of a Catholic perspective at a Catholic school (allegedly) and was cut off.

Is there any evidence he was humiliated, either in actuality or in his own mind?

My guess is that she would have been amenable to apologizing if this had gone through the proper channels and her advisor recommended it.  Most certainly more amenable than McAdams has been.

As it was, she was probably too busy laying low.  That is what I would do if I had discovered that on someone had publicly recommended for the Dean to blow my brains out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

In my view there is plenty of blame here, including McAdams.  I don't think the punishment fits the crime.  Furthermore, I am continually amazed that when students, faculty, etc, promote Catholic teachings at a Catholic university, that is frowned upon or somehow marginalized.  I'm sorry that people don't like that the Catholic church has positions that people disagree with, but that's the way it goes.  They can work internally or externally to try and change those, but at the same time those that are following Catholic doctrine....at a Catholic university of all places...shouldn't be made out to be some leper either. 

I marvel at the leeway that Dan McGuire got back in the day when I was there and SMH at some of the reverse nonsense going on now.

[keefe]

I have posted a link to Dr. Lovell's comments in a couple of places and gotten tremendous positive response for putting it out there.  McAdams has had months to tell his side of the story, and MU has been muzzled because it was a personnel issue.   Even friends of mine who consider themselves very conservative side with the Administration now that they have Marquette's version of the story.

Not everything can and should be run like a military tribunal.

How does keeping this issue in public view benefit Marquette University? That is the only issue.

A more discerning leader would appreciate that distinction and have moved forward. There is nothing to be gained by stoking the flames of this. Nothing.

Decision making is the same - whether for the USAF, GE Capital, or running Marquette University.

Mike Lovell put himself above Marquette by tweeting about this matter.

[GGGG]

How does keeping this issue in public view benefit Marquette University? That is the only issue.

A more discerning leader would appreciate that distinction and have moved forward. There is nothing to be gained by stoking the flames of this. Nothing.

Decision making is the same - whether for the USAF, GE Capital, or running Marquette University.

Mike Lovell put himself above Marquette by tweeting about this matter.

Because your audience is oftentimes more than just the one in the "public view."  There's a constituency of students, employees, donors, trustees, etc.  You don't know what he has been hearing from those constituents that prompted him to make this statement.

You seem to be so convinced that Lovell is making this about Lovell that you don't have any room to understand why there might be very legitimate reasons why he released this statement.  I have told you what can be gained by releasing it, but you are choosing to ignore it.  Even though this is EXACTLY what I do for a living. 

[keefe]

Because your audience is oftentimes more than just the one in the "public view."  There's a constituency of students, employees, donors, trustees, etc.  You don't know what he has been hearing from those constituents that prompted him to make this statement.

You seem to be so convinced that Lovell is making this about Lovell that you don't have any room to understand why there might be very legitimate reasons why he released this statement.  I have told you what can be gained by releasing it, but you are choosing to ignore it.  Even though this is EXACTLY what I do for a living.

As I wrote, if there are specific constituencies that require elaboration then meet with them. In private. That is expected.

Tweeting something is neither discrete nor judicious. It is a broadcast to the entire world.

I am not ignoring what you said. Perhaps you haven't read what I wrote.

[GGGG]

As I wrote, if there are specific constituencies that require elaboration then meet with them. In private. That is expected.

Tweeting something is neither discrete nor judicious. It is a broadcast to the entire world.

I am not ignoring what you said. Perhaps you haven't read what I wrote.

How do you meet with students in private?  Employees?  Alumni?

Even putting it out in public isn't a bad thing at all.  What harm did it cause?

[muwarrior69]

Is there any evidence he was humiliated, either in actuality or in his own mind?

My guess is that she would have been amenable to apologizing if this had gone through the proper channels and her advisor recommended it.  Most certainly more amenable than McAdams has been.

As it was, she was probably too busy laying low.  That is what I would do if I had discovered that on someone had publicly recommended for the Dean blow my brains out.

Even if he went through the proper channels, it seems to me that he would not have gotten an apology, especially if your telling him to quit your course.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html


Publically recommended by someone or not, I doubt that any Dean in their right mind would blow anyone's brains out.

[WarriorInNYC]

Even if he went through the proper channels, it seems to me that he would not have gotten an apology, especially if your telling him to quit your course.

So the conversation was recorded, did that recording ever make it out anywhere?

The reason I ask, is McAdams uses quotes quite a lot to describe Abbate's conversation, but then states that she invited the student to drop the class.  I guess I would be curious as to what exactly the invite was.

[muwarrior69]

In my view there is plenty of blame here, including McAdams.  I don't think the punishment fits the crime.  Furthermore, I am continually amazed that when students, faculty, etc, promote Catholic teachings at a Catholic university, that is frowned upon or somehow marginalized.  I'm sorry that people don't like that the Catholic church has positions that people disagree with, but that's the way it goes.  They can work internally or externally to try and change those, but at the same time those that are following Catholic doctrine....at a Catholic university of all places...shouldn't be made out to be some leper either. 

I marvel at the leeway that Dan McGuire got back in the day when I was there and SMH at some of the reverse nonsense going on now.

I agree. What were they thinking when they opened the Gender and Sexuality Center  filled with LGBT advocates. Are there any at the center that foster Catholic understanding of Gender and Sexuality to give a different perspective? Why did they hire Russ Feingold as a visiting Law Professor, a pro choice advocate. It seems to me they go out of their way by bringing in people that are opposed to Catholic teaching and yet marginalize those who do. It's sad to see my alma mater losing it's soul.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I'm going to guess that our president airing this out on social media is getting tons of positive reaction as well as tons of negative reaction. I doubt it changed a single opinion. The issue is no closer to resolution, meaning Lovell's hanging the university's dirty laundry out served only to keep the flames burning.

A very poorly thought out decision, in my opinion, no matter what side you're on.

[Archies Bat]

I agree. What were they thinking when they opened the Gender and Sexuality Center  filled with LGBT advocates. Are there any at the center that foster Catholic understanding of Gender and Sexuality to give a different perspective? Why did they hire Russ Feingold as a visiting Law Professor, a pro choice advocate. It seems to me they go out of their way by bringing in people that are opposed to Catholic teaching and yet marginalize those who do. It's sad to see my alma mater losing it's soul.

nm

[keefe]

How do you meet with students in private?  Employees?  Alumni?

Even putting it out in public isn't a bad thing at all.  What harm did it cause?

AT GE we called them Town Halls. Get everybody inside a big conference room and talk to them.

In fact, I would argue that Lovell should have done that at the time the University made the announcement. Gather the community and explain here is the problem, here is the solution, here is why we did it. End of story. Move on.

The fact that Lovell picked at the scab after the story was officially closed is the issue.

The harm is that he is keeping the issue alive. And for what?

Marquette has a penchant for shooting itself in the foot. This is just the latest episode in an ongoing saga of ineptitude.

[4everwarriors]

Sure. That kid had every right to request a Congressional Inquiry.

Depending on the issue, a CI can ground a squadron faster than Paris Hilton drops her panties.

But you are missing the point: Mike Lovell made a decision. Stand by it and move on.

It is appropriate to sit down with donors, boosters and other vested constituencies behind closed doors to elaborate. But that isn't what happened here.

Lovell chose to reignite the issue by going public with a direct response to McAdams. The end game is to put the matter to bed. His tweeting a reply to McAdams did just the opposite.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Paris Hilton doesn't wear panties, doe, hey?

[jficke13]

...
The fact that Lovell picked at the scab after the story was officially closed is the issue.

The harm is that he is keeping the issue alive. And for what?

...

I'm pretty sure it won't be over until a judge signs an order. If its going to court, and is already in the court of public opinion, why let McAdams be the only one controlling the narrative?

[keefe]

I'm going to guess that our president airing this out on social media is getting tons of positive reaction as well as tons of negative reaction. I doubt it changed a single opinion. The issue is no closer to resolution, meaning Lovell's hanging the university's dirty laundry out served only to keep the flames burning.

A very poorly thought out decision, in my opinion, no matter what side you're on.

Concur.

This has nothing to do with the merits of McAdams vs the University.

Lovell issued the University position and that should have been the end of it for Marquette. Instead, he not only reacted to McAdams but did so on social media. Just a terrible decision and one beneath a university president.