Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actionable because it poses an immediate risk of bodily harm to the individuals in the vicinity.  Criticizing someone publicly on the internet does not do that.  Yes, some readers may take things too far.  But do we want everyone who criticizes Donald Trump on the internet to be held responsible for readers' responses.  I don't believe so. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

No he didn't.  He linked to her blog.  On her blog, SHE had her contact information.  She had her information out there for all to see.  Lets not invent new facts here.

[mu03eng]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actionable because it poses an immediate risk of bodily harm to the individuals in the vicinity.  Criticizing someone publicly on the internet does not do that.  Yes, some readers may take things too far.  But do we want everyone who criticizes Donald Trump on the internet to be held responsible for readers' responses.  I don't believe so.

Trump has made himself a public figure with the space he is criticized for, the same can't be said for the grad student. McAdams wanted to public shame the TA, he should face consequences when that attempt to shame results in hurting the TA to the point that she had to leave the school.

[mu03eng]

No he didn't.  He linked to her blog.  On her blog, SHE had her contact information.  She had her information out there for all to see.  Lets not invent new facts here.

What did it matter? Her blog had nothing to do with the topic McAdams was pontificating about. He link to her blog specifically for the purpose of public shaming her....he had to know the internet being what it was that people would overreact....that's on him. If he doesn't have the moral fiber to accept that responsibility he doesn't really have a leg to stand on anywhere else.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom.   The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned.  He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.   

[mu03eng]

The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom.   The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned.  He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.

hyperbole much? Humiliated, really? And even if he was humiliated he brought it to the attention of McAdams so shouldn't he be made public as well? And the answer for "humiliating" this student means the TA should be "humiliated" and in the process receive death threats?

[Coleman]

The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom.   The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned.  He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.

The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.

what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along? 

[muwarrior69]

hyperbole much? Humiliated, really? And even if he was humiliated he brought it to the attention of McAdams so shouldn't he be made public as well? And the answer for "humiliating" this student means the TA should be "humiliated" and in the process receive death threats?

According to McAdams: 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.

One can infer after that, he went to McAdams. If the Administrations account differs I would like to hear about it, but I'm sure this will all come out in court.

[mu03eng]

what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along?

Actually yes. I don't believe there is anyone on this board that believes how TA handle the situation was correct, but what she was intending was correct. The undergrad's topic, by all accounts including his, was off the line of discussion and the TA was within protocol to keep the discussion within in the framework of the lecture topic. She attempted to steer the discussion back to the topic, and unfortunately in the process made it seem like she was dismissing the students line of discussion in general as opposed to saying it wasn't relevant for the current topic.

[Coleman]

Actually yes. I don't believe there is anyone on this board that believes how TA handle the situation was correct, but what she was intending was correct. The undergrad's topic, by all accounts including his, was off the line of discussion and the TA was within protocol to keep the discussion within in the framework of the lecture topic. She attempted to steer the discussion back to the topic, and unfortunately in the process made it seem like she was dismissing the students line of discussion in general as opposed to saying it wasn't relevant for the current topic.

Right.

You can't just bring up any topic in class at any time you want, and expect the instructor and 30-some other paying students to just focus on whatever you want to talk about. That would be chaos.

[mu03eng]

According to McAdams: 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.

One can infer after that, he went to McAdams. If the Administrations account differs I would like to hear about it, but I'm sure this will all come out in court.

Mistreatment??? Good lord, if the political leanings were reversed and the undergrad was arguing that plants are people and the TA told him that was a dumb idea and the undergrad went to some liberal prof to blog about how the student was humiliated and mistreated you'd be calling for this undergrad to suck it up, deal with it, quit being a baby, etc.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

what was he supposed to do. Shut up and go along?

No - he probably should have made an unannounced recording of the conversation without permission of the other party and brought it to someone completely unrelated to the class and discipline process. 

Edit: You seriously cannot find 3 people who behaved more poorly and childish in this type of situation.  I am now warming up to the whole sweep it under the rug and shut-up argument because all three are very embarrassing and difficult to advocate for.

[keefe]

The real issue has nothing to do with the undergrad, Abbatte, or McAdams. The legacy here is in how the University leadership handled this.

Once more, our beloved alma mater has been betrayed by those who had the specific responsibility for safeguarding its interests. Everything else is parlor room masturbation.

[warriorchick]

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.

You know who else promotes many aspects of the LGBT community agenda?  Pope Francis.

[muwarrior69]

Mistreatment??? Good lord, if the political leanings were reversed and the undergrad was arguing that plants are people and the TA told him that was a dumb idea and the undergrad went to some liberal prof to blog about how the student was humiliated and mistreated you'd be calling for this undergrad to suck it up, deal with it, quit being a baby, etc.

http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html

I guess someone at MIT thinks so.

https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/

Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.

[Coleman]

http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html

I guess someone at MIT thinks so.

https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/

Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.

So if the student wanted to talk about Soviet economics in French class, the instructor can't shut down discussion, any topic is needs to be allowed?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right.

You can't just bring up any topic in class at any time you want, and expect the instructor and 30-some other paying students to just focus on whatever you want to talk about. That would be chaos.

Except that's a red herring because that isn't what happened.   The topic at hand included (or should have included) the Catholic point of view on this.  It wasn't as if the class was a Stats class and the topic at hand was linear regression and the student brought this up.  In fact, the topic at hand was very much should have included a discussion point on what the undergrad student was asking, as a Catholic...at a Catholic school. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

The undergrad got precisely the reaction he was looking for. Hard to characterize him as a victim.

The undergrad shouldn't have been cut off like he was.  Remember when universities used to act like universities?  Before safe spaces were introduced.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

The undergrad student was just that, an undergrad student....not the instructor...not the "authority" position in the classroom.   The undergrad student is the victim here as far as I'm concerned.  He attends a Catholic institution (allegedly) and brings up Catholic teachings and is cut off in the classroom...told he can go no further...embarrassed, humiliated for...gasp...having Catholic opinions at a Catholic university.

You've mentioned a few times about the student being cut off and embarrassed in class.  I'm just curious where you picked that up -- the primary source doesn't mention it.

http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1

She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

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.

Seriously asking: do you have a source or a link indicating he was shouted down and embarrassed in class?  I haven't seen it, but I haven't exactly been paying close attention lately.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html

I guess someone at MIT thinks so.

https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/

Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.

Well said.  We allow some of the most ridiculous stuff on campuses, including MU, and it isn't shut off.  Yet when a Catholic brings in a Catholic position at a Catholic school (think about that for 10 seconds), he's shut down.   Yet plenty of topics at MU over the years that are entirely ANTI-CATHOLIC in teaching, are allowed to go on in the name of academic freedom, discovery, etc, etc.

[muwarrior69]

You know who else promotes many aspects of the LGBT community agenda?  Pope Francis.

True! But he also warns against it as taught in academia. We should treat all with respect and as the Pope himself has said, "who am I to judge", but the LGBT community should also respect the Catholic view point at a "Catholic" institution, which does not seem to be the case at Marquette.

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-strongly-criticizes-gender-theory-comparing-nuclear-arms

[mu03eng]

http://tech.mit.edu/V109/N21/gilber.21o.html

I guess someone at MIT thinks so.

https://neuroecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/plants-are-people-too/

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/23/vegetable_rights/

Yeah! Just shut down discussion at a liberal arts school if the TA deems it unworthy. This is not about liberal/conservative. A University should be the marketplace of open ideas, no matter how outlandish.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You've mentioned a few times about the student being cut off and embarrassed in class.  I'm just curious where you picked that up -- the primary source doesn't mention it.

http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html?m=1

Seriously asking: do you have a source or a link indicating he was shouted down and embarrassed in class?  I haven't seen it, but I haven't exactly been paying close attention lately.

I never said he was shouted down.    She said certain topics "were beyond dispute" and she would not allow them in class, even though some of the very subjects discussed in class most certainly are beyond dispute all the way up to the teachings of the church. This was told to the students who attempted to bring up differing opinions.  Basically saying if you have these views, you are out of line and cut off.  Shouted down?  No.  But sending a message that your opinions don't matter, aren't acceptable and somehow unsavory because they "were beyond dispute"...yes.

He said he was deeply offended when she would not allow his CATHOLIC points of view on the subject.   https://jonathanturley.org/2016/03/31/marquette-university-professor-suspended-and-facing-termination-for-blog-that-criticized-colleague-for-allegedly-barring-criticism-of-same-sex-marriage-in-a-philosophy-class/





AFTER class, he went to her to express his dissatisfaction with that approach.

"Regardless of why I'm against gay marriage, it's still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person's opinion when they may have different opinions"

She responded....in the link

http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-shame-of-liberals-at-marquette/

[WarriorInNYC]

Except that's a red herring because that isn't what happened.   The topic at hand included (or should have included) the Catholic point of view on this.  It wasn't as if the class was a Stats class and the topic at hand was linear regression and the student brought this up.  In fact, the topic at hand was very much should have included a discussion point on what the undergrad student was asking, as a Catholic...at a Catholic school.

I think your point here has some credence to it, but this is exactly what could have been resolved in the after-class discussion.  I personally don't have an issue with the graduate student waving off the comment in class as "off topic", but having the conversation after class, the undergraduate student should have the chance to communicate why it is on topic.

Now obviously, the graduate student did not handle that after-class conversation well at all and things snow-balled from there.

But I have absolutely no issue with how the graduate student acted during the class itself.  It doesn't sound like she said anything, during class, that would have humiliated the undergraduate student.  (Though I definitely agree she completely overstepped her bounds after class)