Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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.

This is the really dumb part about Lovell's forced apology demand: had he simply suspended McAdams without pay for a semester, McAdams really wouldn't have much to stand on.  Instead, Lovell has essentially forced himself to make another decision on whether to fire McAdams, dragging out this whole mess further--whatever value there may have been in requiring McAdams to "take responsibility", Lovell should have seen that McAdams would never do it and it would not be worth continuing what has been a black eye for the university. 

[Coleman]

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".

That whole post and this is the one thing you argue with, that US Catholic is a "liberal" magazine? Clearly there is not much else to argue with Lovell's explanation here.

Thanks for posting Chick. Good stuff here.

[Coleman]

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

I am so f*cking sick of McAdams' use of the royal "We." He acts like he is the goddamn Pope.

[mu03eng]

For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?

I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".

The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.

[Coleman]

For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?

I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".

The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.

That's an interesting observation. This stuff is never viewed in isolation. There have been PR disasters in the past, IMO most much worse than this (the Gold). Is this just a proverbial straw on the camel's back?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

I thought if he doesn't "apologize" he will be fired.

[muwarrior69]

That whole post and this is the one thing you argue with, that US Catholic is a "liberal" magazine? Clearly there is not much else to argue with Lovell's explanation here.

Thanks for posting Chick. Good stuff here.

Well the Administration used that publication to endorse their position regarding McAdams and foster their canard that Marquette's Catholic Identity is flourishing on campus. The student we don't hear about has certainly not experienced Catholic Identity flourishing on campus. Why doesn't Marquette just be honest and stop promoting the University as a Catholic Institution when it is clearly not; especially when it goes out of it's way to promote the LGBT community agenda.

[keefe]

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.

glow

The problem is not Lovell's willingness to make a decision. The issue is to make the right decision consistently.

We are not talking about the mid-level Purchasing Manager here. The man is the Chief Executive of an enterprise with an international constituency. I expect him to perform accordingly.

And as we both seem to know Lovell needs to become less stubborn, obstinate, and close-minded on many things in order to mature into the seasoned decision-maker we need to lead Marquette. My only regret is that we have to suffer through his education process.


Your comment reminded me of the Pepsi Hypodermic Needle Case. I was with PepsiCo Foods International in Hong Kong when a series of hypos were being reported found in cans of Pepsi. The first report was concerning. But when reports of needles in cans started cropping up all over the US Pepsi knew it was a hoax that was pointing towards lawsuits.

Wayne Callaway made numerous decisions that were firm, determined, and correct:

1. Contacted the FBI because he knew this was a criminal matter
2. Refused to pull product becuase no one had been injured or harmed
3. Launched an expensive media campaign that showed how cans are rinsed multiple times, filled, then capped in a matter of seconds to demonstrate the physical impossibility of needles in cans
4. Worked with retailers to scan through in-store video

Despite a national outcry for Pepsi to order a massive recall Callaway refused to give in. And when investigators started unearthing video of idiots opening cans of Pepsi in the stores and actually dropping needles into the cans Pepsi had the evidence it needed to prove this was a scam.

Perhaps the most important decision Callaway made was to seek criminal charges against the people who had tried to extort money out of Pepsi.

Most CEOs would not have held firm as did Callaway. Despite overwhelming negative public reaction he refused to order a recall and invested millions in an education campaign while working with the FBI to disprove the claims. Initially, PepsiCo stock 3% of its value in the first days of the 'scandal' but ultimately more than doubled by the end of that year.

Making decisions is easy. Making the right decision consistently is what separates the leaders from the pretenders.
 



 

[mayfairskatingrink]

This is the really dumb part about Lovell's forced apology demand: had he simply suspended McAdams without pay for a semester, McAdams really wouldn't have much to stand on.  Instead, Lovell has essentially forced himself to make another decision on whether to fire McAdams, dragging out this whole mess further--whatever value there may have been in requiring McAdams to "take responsibility", Lovell should have seen that McAdams would never do it and it would not be worth continuing what has been a black eye for the university.

I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it).  However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now.  Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court.  Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

For those in the "MU is badly mishandling this" camp, a bit of a thought exercise. Let's take this incident in isolation, let's pretty MU hasn't screwed up this type of stuff in the past or any inherent issues you may have with the direction of the university, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how bad do you think this is?

I get the general sense that this issue in isolation isn't that egregious but is a case where people step back and say MU is f'ing this up again. In other words, this is really about the compounding effect and perhaps the dashing of hope that Lovell "would be different".

The reason I ask, is because a lot of this is legacy issue, prior to Lovell, and also a lot of competing stakeholders to manage. I'm hopeful that this is a clearing of the deck that should new issues arise will be dealt with successfully.

On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8.  This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution.  Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations.  Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.

[muwarrior69]

I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it).  However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now.  Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court.  Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.

So if McAdams wins this case do you think he will remain at MU and continue to be a thorn in their side or retire?

[mu03eng]

On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8.  This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution.  Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations.  Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.

The irony of your statement (IMO) is that little to none of the current back and forth has anything to do with the undergrad students ability to speak out. It's purely about McAdams demanding he be able to say whatever he wants without repercussion. Yes, the university have mucked it up some, but they also have a responsibility to stand up for themselves as an institution and for all of their students, including the grad student.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your response and point of view, and not trying to be argumentative.

[mu03eng]

I was told by a very good source that there was a decent chance that McAdams would have taken the semester suspension (not happily but might have accepted it).  However, the demand for an apology has caused the situation to escalate again and it is 100% headed to court now.  Lovell blew this big time, and as I've said before, MU is heading towards a massive beatdown from the WI Supreme Court.  Why Lovell inserted himself into this so personally with the apology demand is baffling.

Then McAdams is just as petty if not more so than Lovell. As a human being with the ability to feel, McAdams could have apologized at least for what the grad student went through....however he'd rather keep his petty spat going.

[muwarrior69]

On your 10 point scale, I think this is about an 8.  This issue goes to the very core of Marquette's values as an institution.  Does it allow people to express themselves openly or does it police members' speech on the basis that some things are just too difficult to allow be said? This all plays in to this new paradigm where we have to "protect" students from harmful ideas and uncomfortable situations.  Not only is that patronizing, it is an ineffective way to educate young people about the way the real world operates. When you contrast Marquette's approach with that of an institution like University of Chicago, you see some of the reasons why Marquette will never be an elite academic institution.

Title IX mandates by the Obama Administration also play into this.

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

[mu03eng]

Title IX mandates by the Obama Administration also play into this.

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

And remember there are lingering Title IX and Cleary Act issues for non-related incidents that are likely factoring into this.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The irony of your statement (IMO) is that little to none of the current back and forth has anything to do with the undergrad students ability to speak out. It's purely about McAdams demanding he be able to say whatever he wants without repercussion. Yes, the university have mucked it up some, but they also have a responsibility to stand up for themselves as an institution and for all of their students, including the grad student.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your response and point of view, and not trying to be argumentative.

The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class.  I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.

[muwarrior69]

And remember there are lingering Title IX and Cleary Act issues for non-related incidents that are likely factoring into this.

Why MU has not requested a religious exemption is telling.

[mu03eng]

The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class.  I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.

All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.

McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.

[Coleman]

The irony of your statement (IMO) is that what McAdams was punished for was writing about his concerns regarding an instructor limiting an undergrad's right to present his viewpoint during class.  I agree that this has taken on a life of its own, but that is because the university overreacted and became more concerned about defending a grad student with a popular viewpoint than engaging in a reasonable review of how academic freedom issues are handled on campus.

Dude didn't just write about concerns. He disclosed contact info about the grad student on a public blog which led to harassment.

[muwarrior69]

All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.

McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.

Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.

[Coleman]

Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.

Not practical for a whole bunch of reasons.

[mu03eng]

Is the University going after those who sent the "death threats". I am sure they can track down their IP addresses.

Why is that the universities obligation?

Would you be more comfortable if MU had gone after those individuals and spent resources on chasing them down?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

All well and good, but MU is not the one that short circuited the opportunity for that conversation by taking it into the public domain, McAdams did.

McAdams was wrong in what he did, he could have taken his punishment and still worked within the university to seek redress for the wronging of the undergrad. However he chose (and MU should have known this) to yell fire in a theater. You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Maybe, I'm in the wrong, but I'd rather the university come down on the side of someone getting death threats then on the side of allowing a professor to pontificate.

Whether you agree with what McAdams said or did is not the point.  Marquette as an institution has to be the bigger "person" in all of this.  Instead of taking the higher road, Marquette is stooping down to McAdams' level and engaging in a back and forth of pot shots.  Marquette could have taken McAdams' blog post in stride, discussed the matter with him without suspending or firing him, conducted a review, and announced its policy on this issue for the world to see moving forward.  Instead, they jumped the gun, kicked the guy off campus, accused him of harassment, and garnered the reputation of a university with viewpoint intolerance.  Not the right move.

And what McAdams' did was not akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Dude didn't just write about concerns. He disclosed contact info about the grad student on a public blog which led to harassment.

All he did was link to a similarly public blog.  Once you start a blog, you accept the possibility that people on the internet who don't like what you say might write nasty things to you: it's the 21st century.

And for the record, if anyone did send true threats to the instructor, I fully support prosecuting them to the fullest extent under the law.  But McAdams' is not responsible for third parties' responses to his blog.

[mu03eng]

Whether you agree with what McAdams said or did is not the point.  Marquette as an institution has to be the bigger "person" in all of this.  Instead of taking the higher road, Marquette is stooping down to McAdams' level and engaging in a back and forth of pot shots.  Marquette could have taken McAdams' blog post in stride, discussed the matter with him without suspending or firing him, conducted a review, and announced its policy on this issue for the world to see moving forward.  Instead, they jumped the gun, kicked the guy off campus, accused him of harassment, and garnered the reputation of a university with viewpoint intolerance.  Not the right move.

And what McAdams' did was not akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Your proposal is fine if this were not a pattern with McAdams, but he had done similar things repeatedly all of which were getting attention anyway. I'm glad they finally took it head on. They did it in a ham handed way, but I believe they were absolutely right to address the issue firmly.

And it is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. He mentioned a grad students name in a politically charged manner, the natural conclusion is that some people on the internet would go after her. Naming her had absolutely no value to accomplishing his stated "goal" of restoring "free speech" to campus. He also didn't name the undergrad student, why is that?