Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[warriorchick]

Yesterday Marquette posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the McAdams incident on its official news web page.

http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today

Since I am pretty confident that MU's goal is to disseminate information and not count views, I am pulling a Heisy here and posting it in full.  I am also highlighting facts that I believe have been misrepresented or underreported:


Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on personnel matter

APRIL 13, 2016

There has been a lot of misinformation on the internet and from groups outside our campus about a personnel situation involving Marquette and Associate Professor John McAdams. Marquette University has put together a Frequently Asked Questions page to share the facts and to make clear our position as a university. Dr. McAdams’ suspension with the university is continuing. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.

Where do leadership groups across campus stand on the issues?

President Michael Lovell’s perspective can be found here in his call for decency.
Marquette University’s Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees just issued a statement on behalf of the entire Board fully supporting President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee recommendations.
The Executive Committee of the University Academic Senate also shared a statement supporting the positions of President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
2015-16 Marquette University Student Government president Zack Wallace shared his perspective on this issue, in a post titled “Marquette value: Students first.”
The University Staff Senate also posted a statement that supports President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.

What happened here?

Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion. Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student — publicly shaming her, questioning her values and including a link to her contact information. He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio. Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages. At one point, Marquette had to station a public safety officer outside her classroom. She chose to leave the university. The university reviewed Dr. McAdams’ conduct.

What was the university’s review process?

Following shared governance rules set by the university’s Academic Senate, a Faculty Hearing Committee made up of seven of Dr. McAdams’ peers conducted a hearing over four days last September. The committee consisted of tenured faculty members from several different academic disciplines. The committee issued a 123-page report to the president, concluding with a unanimous recommendation that Dr. McAdams acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and without justification — and that he should be suspended.

It was Marquette’s preference throughout this process to keep all proceedings between the university and Dr. McAdams confidential because this is a personnel matter. However, Dr. McAdams has frequently used his blog to publish his version of proceedings — with the notable exception of his decision not to publish the full 123-page Faculty Hearing Committee Report, something he is free to do at any time. We feel this FAQ document is an important step to correct the misinformation he and some groups outside campus have perpetuated.

Has Dr. McAdams been fired?

No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.

Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?

No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for more than a decade, publishing approximately 3,000 posts, and the university administration has never disciplined him. He has the right to talk about controversial topics on his blog, and to disagree with and debate Marquette-related positions freely. Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages. Dr. McAdams continues to use the student’s name on his blog, even recently identifying where she is currently studying, leading to more hostile and threatening messages.

Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views?

No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.

Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?

President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.

Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?

We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective. Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.

Does Marquette foresee any changes related to other tenured professors?

No, Marquette has a longstanding tradition of awarding and supporting tenure to faculty who have earned tenure status. As President Lovell has shared previously, “Tenure is earned, but is also a responsibility with obligations. The power that tenure affords must never intimidate and silence or cause potential harm to those who are less powerful.”

Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?

The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first. The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.

Did the university review the graduate student teaching assistant’s handling of the classroom discussion?

The university immediately began a review of the overall incident, which included Dr. McAdams and the graduate student. The graduate student left the university soon after the process began, after she  was subject to a stream of threats and hateful messages.

Is the Faculty Hearing Committee Report available to read?

When the Faculty Hearing Committee issued its report, members of the committee noted that they hope it becomes public in the future. Dr. McAdams is free to make it public at any time, as he has done with several other internal documents throughout this process.

What has factored into the length of this process?

This is a unique situation and it was important that university leaders followed shared governance policies and procedures throughout the process. This process included a review of the incident and four days of testimony from both sides. The Faculty Hearing Committee was diligent in drafting and issuing a 123-page report and unanimous recommendation for action, and time for the president to make his final decision.

   

- See more at: http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today#sthash.NXCAtXGH.dpuf

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Thanks for posting

[mu03eng]

Does Matty V know you copied and pasted information he didn't provide?

[warriorchick]

Does Matty V know you copied and pasted information he didn't provide?

That will be our little secret.   

[jsglow]

I think one thing that might be lost in all this is the unequivocal support Dr. Lovell has received internally including public statements by the BOT, the independent Faculty Hearing Committee, the Academic Senate,  the Staff Senate and the MUSG President. I'm especially apprectative of John Ferraro's written support.

It's an unfortunate situation that John McAdams has chosen to exploit rather than resolve. I truly wish outside journalists would take the time to accurately understand and report.  Perhaps getting closer to that has been Marquette's objective over the last week.

[warriorchick]

Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.

Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?

[muwarrior69]

Yesterday Marquette posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the McAdams incident on its official news web page.

http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today

Since I am pretty confident that MU's goal is to disseminate information and not count views, I am pulling a Heisy here and posting it in full.  I am also highlighting facts that I believe have been misrepresented or underreported:


Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on personnel matter

APRIL 13, 2016

There has been a lot of misinformation on the internet and from groups outside our campus about a personnel situation involving Marquette and Associate Professor John McAdams. Marquette University has put together a Frequently Asked Questions page to share the facts and to make clear our position as a university. Dr. McAdams’ suspension with the university is continuing. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.

Where do leadership groups across campus stand on the issues?

President Michael Lovell’s perspective can be found here in his call for decency.
Marquette University’s Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees just issued a statement on behalf of the entire Board fully supporting President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee recommendations.
The Executive Committee of the University Academic Senate also shared a statement supporting the positions of President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.
2015-16 Marquette University Student Government president Zack Wallace shared his perspective on this issue, in a post titled “Marquette value: Students first.”
The University Staff Senate also posted a statement that supports President Lovell and the Faculty Hearing Committee.

What happened here?

Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion. Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student — publicly shaming her, questioning her values and including a link to her contact information. He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio. Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages. At one point, Marquette had to station a public safety officer outside her classroom. She chose to leave the university. The university reviewed Dr. McAdams’ conduct.

What was the university’s review process?

Following shared governance rules set by the university’s Academic Senate, a Faculty Hearing Committee made up of seven of Dr. McAdams’ peers conducted a hearing over four days last September. The committee consisted of tenured faculty members from several different academic disciplines. The committee issued a 123-page report to the president, concluding with a unanimous recommendation that Dr. McAdams acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and without justification — and that he should be suspended.

It was Marquette’s preference throughout this process to keep all proceedings between the university and Dr. McAdams confidential because this is a personnel matter. However, Dr. McAdams has frequently used his blog to publish his version of proceedings — with the notable exception of his decision not to publish the full 123-page Faculty Hearing Committee Report, something he is free to do at any time. We feel this FAQ document is an important step to correct the misinformation he and some groups outside campus have perpetuated.

Has Dr. McAdams been fired?

No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.

Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?

No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for more than a decade, publishing approximately 3,000 posts, and the university administration has never disciplined him. He has the right to talk about controversial topics on his blog, and to disagree with and debate Marquette-related positions freely. Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages. Dr. McAdams continues to use the student’s name on his blog, even recently identifying where she is currently studying, leading to more hostile and threatening messages.

Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views?

No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.

Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?

President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.

Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?

We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.[/color] Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.

Does Marquette foresee any changes related to other tenured professors?

No, Marquette has a longstanding tradition of awarding and supporting tenure to faculty who have earned tenure status. As President Lovell has shared previously, “Tenure is earned, but is also a responsibility with obligations. The power that tenure affords must never intimidate and silence or cause potential harm to those who are less powerful.”

Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?

The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first. The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.

Did the university review the graduate student teaching assistant’s handling of the classroom discussion?

The university immediately began a review of the overall incident, which included Dr. McAdams and the graduate student. The graduate student left the university soon after the process began, after she  was subject to a stream of threats and hateful messages.

Is the Faculty Hearing Committee Report available to read?

When the Faculty Hearing Committee issued its report, members of the committee noted that they hope it becomes public in the future. Dr. McAdams is free to make it public at any time, as he has done with several other internal documents throughout this process.

What has factored into the length of this process?

This is a unique situation and it was important that university leaders followed shared governance policies and procedures throughout the process. This process included a review of the incident and four days of testimony from both sides. The Faculty Hearing Committee was diligent in drafting and issuing a 123-page report and unanimous recommendation for action, and time for the president to make his final decision.

   

- See more at: http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/?utm_source=fac-staff&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mu-today#sthash.NXCAtXGH.dpuf

A liberal magazine like US Catholic endorsing the Administration's position should come as no surprise.  The position of the administration to keep this all 'confidential' to me is just cover to silence Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Glow pretty much admitted the student even with McAdam's support would not have gotten a fair hearing from the Philosophy department filled with "flaming lefties".

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

A liberal magazine like US Catholic endorsing the Administration's position should come as no surprise.  The position of the administration to keep this all 'confidential' to me is just cover to silence Catholic teaching at a Catholic University. Glow pretty much admitted the student even with McAdam's support would not have gotten a fair hearing from the Philosophy department filled with "flaming lefties".

Two interesting things in my mind.

1. Confidentiality - I do not believe they can release the report...can you imagine if HR did that in your organization?  I am not opining legally, but I would be appalled if the organization I worked for  released the findings of a committee that could impact my ability to work in the future.

2. Catholic Teaching - I agree with what you say and what Glow said - but guess what we will never know that because of what happened.  There is a case to be made in this country to ensure that people's right to academic and religious freedom is protected.  Unfortunately you can't trample on the rights of others to prove it just because you don't believe that the 'process works'. The end does not  justify the mean by which it is done.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.

Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?

You realize that many of the statements in these FAQs are simply University talking points, not "facts". 

Quite surprised the University is willing to put something like this out with litigation looming, but there must be a substantial amount of questions being raised by alumni. 

[warriorchick]

You realize that many of the statements in these FAQs are simply University talking points, not "facts". 

Quite surprised the University is willing to put something like this out with litigation looming, but there must be a substantial amount of questions being raised by alumni.

Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?

[mayfairskatingrink]

Here's Prof McAdams response to the FAQ...

Marquette’s Defensive, Evasive and Dishonest Attack on the Warrior Blogger
Marquette today came out with an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about our case. It’s an amazing collection of evasion, dissembling, and outright falsehood.

Let’s analyze it piece by piece (Marquette’s statement in sans serif typeface):
Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion.
We “disagreed” with a teacher who told a student that he could not express opposition to gay marriage because doing so would be “homophobic,” and would “offend” any gay student in class. But Marquette implies this was merely some disagreement about pedagogical philosophy.
Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student . . .
In the first place, the undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.

Of course, bureaucrats would like all cases of misconduct to be quietly dealt with through “internal channels.” This is the way the Catholic Church handled the priestly sex abuse crisis.

Just how did that work out?

Keeping misconduct quiet removes the incentive for the bureaucrats to fix the problem. Further, the public has a right to know that at Marquette, a supposed “Catholic university,” this kind of abuse could happen.
— publicly shaming her,
What Lovell calls “public shaming” was simply journalism. Any reporting of misconduct could be called “public shaming.”

For example, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were shown on video voicing a racist chant on a bus. This was widely reported, and some of the fraternity members received death threats.

Was the media guilty of “public shaming?”

Had we, for example, written about a male professor who sexually harassed a female student, it’s inconceivable that we would be charged with “shaming” the professor.
questioning her values
Questioning the values of an instructor who said that certain opinions about marriage (and indeed the “opinions” of the Catholic Church) could not be expressed in a Marquette classroom? Absolutely!

Why does Marquette not question such “values?”
and including a link to her contact information.
Untrue. We included a link to her blog, which happened to contain her contact information (something we had not even noticed when we put up the post). The purpose of the link was obvious from the context. As we noted:
Aside from the audio, it’s easy to see how Abbate would have said what we reported. Her blog is titled “Thoughts from a Vegan Feminist Philosopher.” Some of the stuff seems quirky and bland, such as her criticism for a Catholic parish for having a pig wrestling contest.

Less benign is her essay titled “Yes All Men…Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape.” Yes, it’s a common theme among feminists and Exhibit One of the reality that hard-core feminism is, at root, about sexist antipathy toward males.
And Marquette continues:
He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio.
When we came under attack from Abbate and her allies, we defended ourself in the media. This was supposedly bad.
Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages.
In fact, she received no threats, as she herself admitted.

She did receive some nasty e-mails. But nobody can report unfavorable information about anybody without the possibility of some jerks writing them and saying abusive things. This had never happened before in the ten-year history of our blog.

Again, should the media have declined to report the misconduct of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon members (see above)? A typical case in the media is when some high school teacher has sex with a student. The name of the teacher is always mentioned.
Has Dr. McAdams been fired?
No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.
The “assurance” is a demand that the Faculty Hearing Committee did not make: that we apologize and take a loyalty oath. To be specific, Lovell demanded:
• Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee.
• Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values.
• Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.
As for “behaviors that harm others:” this apparently means any blogging that criticizes anybody at Marquette or reveals any misconduct at Marquette. In other words, the demand is that we renounce our right to academic freedom.
Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages.
Lovell is calling our reporting on misconduct by a graduate instructor a “personal attack.” By this standard, any reporting of misconduct of anybody at Marquette could be called a “personal attack.”
Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?

President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.
Compare this with the direct quote (above) from Lovell’s letter to us. This level of spin and evasiveness is downright dishonest.
Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?
We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.
Interesting that they mention liberal U.S. Catholic, which is the only Catholic outlet that has sided with Marquette. Every other one that has dealt with the issue has taken Marquette to task (except for the liberal National Catholic Reporter, which ran a neutral article).

Also, secular outlets, including liberal ones like Slate, the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have criticized Marquette on this issue. So has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. So has the conservative Wall Street Journal.
Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.
Right, it is flourishing when students are demeaned and shut up for wanting to argue for the Catholic view of marriage. Or when a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center honors one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.”

Or when Marquette sponsors a “Femsex” seminar in which participants are expected to produce a piece of erotica (read “pornography”) and have a “nonjudgmental” discussion of abortion, pornography and prostitution, and color pictures of female genitalia in the “aunt Coloring Book.”

Or when instructors are fearful about discussing the Catholic view of marriage because they may be charged with “sexual harassment.”

Or when Marquette “likes” a tweet that demands that opposition to gay marriage be shut up on campus, as “hate speech.”

If this is flourishing, what would languishing look like?
Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?

The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first.
And how is she a “student first?” Because that’s convenient for Marquette. The instructor, Cheryl Abbate, was the “Instructor of Record” in the course: she made out the syllabus, she handled the lectures and class discussion, she graded the papers and assigned the grades.


Click to Enlarge

Abbate, at the time of the incident, was 29 years old and in the U.S. military. She had taught the class multiple times previously.

The real “student” was the undergraduate who was bullied because of his views on gay marriage.
The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.
The Faculty Handbook outlines “channels of authority” which can handle complaints, but there is no rule whatsoever banning the public airing of abuses at Marquette. Any such rule would be at odds with faculty contractual guarantees of academic freedom.

Again, all bureaucrats would prefer that cases of misconduct be kept quiet and internal. But journalists (and that includes faculty bloggers) have no obligation to accommodate them on this.

In fact, where the bureaucrats have failed to address the problem (as they did in this case) or where there is a systemic problem (as politically correct intolerance is at Marquette) there is actually a moral imperative to “go public.”
Labels: Academic Freedom, Catholic Mission, Faculty Hearing Committee, John McAdams, Leftist Intolerance, Liberal Intolerance, Marquette University, Michael Lovell, Political Correctness

POSTED BY JOHN MCADAMS AT 9:54 PM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST 

[keefe]

What a f#cking disaster this continues to be.

As for the Marquette action: I smell fear.

It's the Ted Mack Amateur Hour

[jsglow]

The part that I found interesting was John's complaint that the matter got referred back to Philosophy by the Dean. Well of course that was the first step dude. Like I've said,  proper channels.

Here's what I believe but don't know for sure and absolutely won't ask. Trust me, having spent lots of time in deps during my career I know when not to ask questions. At the time of McAdams initial blog,  I'm pretty sure the Provost hadn't even heard of the matter. Like I said, channels.

[keefe]

Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?

Do you really believe that this entire episode has not been a complete train wreck for our alma mater?

Marquette's FAQ is pure, unadulterated spin. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish between opinion and empiricism.

Mike Lovell continues to underwhelm. I had been on the fence about the guy but the more I see the less I think he is the discerning sophisticated executive we should have to lead our college.

It would seem that his most compelling personal attribute for Marquette is that he attends Mass every day. Frankly, since Marquette is straying from its Catholic values I would argue that belonging to the Roman Church is becoming less of a criterion for heading up this once proud Jesuit institution.

I would rather have a Jewish Mark Schlissel or an Anglican Drew Gilpin Faust provide the inspired leadership for Marquette that Catholic Mike Lovell apparently cannot. 

[mu03eng]

Ok, now I'm finally on the MU just needs to shut up train. You aren't going to win with McAdams and his megaphone (conservative/Fox News types) is much larger.

McAdams is a fool, but engaging him further simply puts MU behind the power curve and he's gonna win a low level, knife fight

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Which of these talking points are not verifiable facts?

The following are not verifiable facts, but rather talking points:

"Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom? No, this issue is about the professor’s conduct toward a graduate student."

"Was this issue about Dr. McAdams’ political views? No, this issue had nothing to do with politics. Our review and decisions are based on Dr. McAdams’ actions toward our graduate student, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog."

"Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold."

"Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity? We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor."

"Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student? The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first."


I really don't understand why Lovell doesn't just stand up as the bigger man, admit that his administration overreacted, and put the whole thing to bed. 

[rocket surgeon]

Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.

Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?

taa-daaa, i'm baaaack  none of these facts matter-heyheyhey heyn'a?

just kidding, sorta.  i need to catch up a little here...don't go anywhere now, hear?

[WellsstreetWanderer]

amateur hour at the old Alma Mater

[rocket surgeon]

  ok, here it goes-my thoughts-marquette is trying to do what it thinks it has to do.  fine.  everyone in MU's adm. is in adamant support of dr. lovell and their response-really?  give me second to get up off the floor.  if they would have asked me, i could have made up some FAQ's and then proceeded to "answer" them if they didn't mind lower case and poor ingles, 'ey   nice!  i'll ask the questions AND i'll give the answers?  what the...?  ya know, this could be all fine and good, but i don't know where they are getting their advice from.  experts? if these experts went to MU, and this is the advice they are getting, i'd want a second opinion.

  BUT, MU is completely missing the elephant in the room here.  all of us here pretty much know and/or have heard both sides.  everyone else out there doesn't have time and/or will not take the time to hear all that.  and besides, for the most part, it's too late. people want the cliff's notes version, then off to pick up junior from soccer practice.  pardon the expression, but MU is not going to get the toothpaste back into the tube.  people, in stories as these, have seen this dog hunt far too many times-liberal schools beating down conservative points of view-the end.  so they hear about this situation via whatever media and they roll their eyes and go, here we go again.  let's see, warrior, militant mural, acceptance of flaming unqualified liberal for arts and sciences then rescinding it, safe places, tolerance, tolerance, tolerance

  doc mccadams has a well followed blog.  he has some fans.  they talk.  next thing ya know, the rush limbaugh's and mark belling's are talking about this on NATIONAL radio-more than once.  other media(wsj, et.al.) picks up on it.  whether i'm for doc mccadams, neutral or for my alma mater, it doesn't matter.  MU is handling this badly and they keep stepping in it.  it doesn't matter if abbate was a teacher, a student, a jesuit, head of the dept...it doesn't matter if doc mccadam's really doesn't go to church every sunday...people have already heard what they want to hear.  MU is becoming the berkeley of the midwest, but they have their supporters...whatever...

  what should they do?  obviously i'm not a PR dude, but MU seems really dug in, and in their mind(s) they think they are being reasonable. they need to come out, put the big boy pants on and tell everyone they are going to start over and become a leader of higher education throughout the nation and show that they are truly tolerant of both sides.  it's time for some action-show us. right now, MU is catholic/jesuit in name only-they aren't fooling anyone.  enough with the-well we aren't really THAT liberal.  drop the mccadams case and start anew.  do something different, bold and make the others take notice

ya know why they won't do this?  they don't believe in it.  it's not in their DNA.  they are playing not to lose and they are trying to run out the clock.  at what price(not always monetarily) remains to be seen

 

     

[ChicosBailBonds]

Am a little surprise by the sound of virtual crickets here.

Where are Chicos and Rocket saying none of these facts matter?

Sorry Chick, didn't get around to reading this until tonight.  Problem as I see it, a whole lot of what is listed here may or may not be facts.  How much is verfiable, how much left out, etc?  As an example, they talk about the Catholicism angle, which is fine, but that is hardly the only viewpoint on this from Catholics, including some Catholic publications.

Found it interesting in one area MU says "graduate student", but later states "graduate student instructor".  Be consistent MU!!

I'm glad they put this out (FINALLY), again makes me wonder why they are so damn slow on the PR front.  This could have been done months ago, but now it comes out?  Even if I don't buy into some of it, some of it is good stuff, but MU and the PR game has been terrible for years.

[keefe]

I hate to say this but we might very well have crossed the Zizzo Line.

Time to uncork the bottle of Zizzo Voom...

[keefe]

Ok, now I'm finally on the MU just needs to shut up train. You aren't going to win with McAdams and his megaphone (conservative/Fox News types) is much larger.

McAdams is a fool, but engaging him further simply puts MU behind the power curve and he's gonna win a low level, knife fight

This whole thing has been terribly mismanaged.

The key take away has nothing to do with John McAdams; the real problem centers on Mike Lovell's judgment as a leader.

[mu03eng]

This whole thing has been terribly mismanaged.

The key take away has nothing to do with John McAdams; the real problem centers on Mike Lovell's judgment as a leader.

I am unwilling to hold this one issue, that started prior to Lovell being in charge, as an indictment on Lovell's capability generally. Overall, I've been very pleased with Lovell's stewardship of the university.

[jsglow]

No doubt Mike does have a few blind spots that I won't articulate here. But decisiveness and leadership aren't among them. One can disagree with his decisions in this and other matters but one must acknowledge his willingness to make them.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I'm in the "I don't really care at all." camp. 

Marquette put the FAQ's out there, which makes the investigation transparent.
With the FAQ's out, whoever said time to be quiet is correct.
Obviously, McAdams has the personality of someone who'll eventually do himself in, but only if MU stays quiet on the subject going forward.
Who cares who he chirps to, he wasn't fired so he doesn't have much to complain about.