The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams

[tower912]

Something is going on between McAdams and Marquette?   How come nobody said anything?

[jsglow]

The bolded is really key.  The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this.  He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue. 

Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.

Instead, he pushed the issue further.  If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.

MU did the right thing...period.

Eventually, the bully on the playground who repeatedly picks on second graders needs to be taken down.  Sometimes that means that the guys who finally take care of it get bloody noses and ripped jeans.  But there's right and wrong and somebody has to do it.  My only disappointment is that it took so long.   Because when a bully isn't stopped, he's emboldened.

[classof2k]

The bolded is really key.  The problem is that he was reprimanded and official violations of code placed on his record previously for things like this.  He continued to do it, and even after subsequent reprimands, continued to push the issue. 

Had he came out and apologized and said he regrets posting the information on his blog and indirectly causing the student harm, MU would likely have backed off.

Instead, he pushed the issue further.  If they didn't act, and he did something like this again and the future and instead of just online threats, someone was actually injured, MU would have been liable for the attack due to not following their code of conduct.

MU did the right thing...period.

Regarding the bolded/underlined part, I have no doubt that McAdam's prior behavior was confronted.  I am however curious as to the nature of that feedback and how it'll hold up in the legal system.

From Marquette's own report.  Page 2:
http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf

Second, despite multiple prior conflicts with professors, administrators, and students over his extramural and campus communications, Dr. McAdams has never been formally reprimanded, or even warned that his behavior was approaching a boundary that could lead to dismissal.

[Pakuni]

How so?

This can't be the first time that a professor has publicly criticized a TA, or any student for that matter.  Was McAdams fired simply because he criticized a TA?  Or was it because of the public response/follow to his criticism.  If McAdams wrote the blog and instead the response was overwhelmingly favorable to the TA, do you honestly think McAdams would have been fired?  If McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, would McAdams had been fired?

You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but you can't ignore that "strangers on the Internet" played a major role here.

Don't be obtuse.
Besides the obvious mistake - he didn't lose his job - he wasn't suspended "because of what strangers on the internet said." He was suspended for what he wrote, in combination with his documented history of writing such things in violation of university policy (a fact the WSJ conveniently ignores).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case.  Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.

LOL.  So totally wrong, but precious nonetheless.

I've had numerous articles sent to me by friends that didn't go to MU, have no association to MU, but read the articles and asked "what is going on with your alma mater?"

[Tugg Speedman]

LOL.  So totally wrong, but precious nonetheless.

I've had numerous articles sent to me by friends that didn't go to MU, have no association to MU, but read the articles and asked "what is going on with your alma mater?"

+1

I had the WSJ op-ed sent to me by three people yesterday asking what is going on, to poking fun at the MU sh!tshow.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1

I had the WSJ op-ed sent to me by three people yesterday asking what is going on, to poking fun at the MU sh!tshow.

But but but no one outside of MU cares or knows about this.   

[keefe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/02/a-university-moved-to-fire-a-professor-after-he-defended-a-students-right-to-debate-gay-marriage-now-hes-suing/

[rocket surgeon]

Keefe, no one outside of the MU community is even aware of this case.  Those that are aware in academia largely side with MU.

mark belling has discussed this on both his show here in milwaukee and rush limbaugh's show in new york when he has subbed for him.  rush limbaugh has discussed this also.  i don't know how many million people listen to those shows combined.  more locally, it has been discussed on charlie sykes, jay weber, vicki mckenna's shows.  don't know if jeff wagner has had it on his show.

i'm sure people outside the MU community are aware of this

[ChicosBailBonds]

Forgetful's comments were absurd.  To suggest that only the MU community cares is putting one's head in the sand.

All one has to do is a simple search of the topic on forums alone to see people talking about it.  Now, is it the top story on the news or at the water cooler...no, but ridiculous to suggest this is confined to MU's echo chamber.

[muwarrior69]

I can imagine the outcome of this case will impact other schools as well, not just MU; which is why it has become a topic in the national media.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/professor-sues-after-school-threatens-his-job-over-conservative-blog/

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU countering with their own friendly media and putting bullying information out there.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/professor-sues-after-school-threatens-his-job-over-conservative-blog/

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/professor.sues.catholic.university.for.firing.him.over.blog.post.pointing.out.instructors.pro.gay.rights.stance/85369.htm

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7551

[Benny B]

Don't be obtuse.
Besides the obvious mistake - he didn't lose his job - he wasn't suspended "because of what strangers on the internet said." He was suspended for what he wrote, in combination with his documented history of writing such things in violation of university policy (a fact the WSJ conveniently ignores).

He didn't lose his job?  I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired.  What a clusterf---.

But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all?  Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?

Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help.  So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation.  So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world?  At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?

At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally.  He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

NM

[keefe]

Eventually, the bully on the playground who repeatedly picks on second graders needs to be taken down.  Sometimes that means that the guys who finally take care of it get bloody noses and ripped jeans.  But there's right and wrong and somebody has to do it.  My only disappointment is that it took so long.   Because when a bully isn't stopped, he's emboldened.

What are your thoughts on the teachers who abused their authority and attacked him without regard to established rules and protocols?

McAdams has been a pain in Marquette's side for years but nothing he did was actually illegal or unethical. It may not demonstrate the best judgment or taste but that is a matter of opinion and not fact.

In responding to his naming Abbate on his blog the Marquette administrators violated the rules in the how, what, why, and when of meting out discipline against McAdams. In this there is no debate.

But here is the bottom line: Marquette is being cast in a devastatingly bad light because of this. Frankly, this could have been managed far more effectively. McAdams did what he did. But Marquette made this the tragedy it has become.

[WarriorInNYC]

He didn't lose his job?  I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired.  What a clusterf---.

But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all?  Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?

Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help.  So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation.  So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world?  At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?

At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally.  He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.

These are very valid points, but I think there is some added responsibility to having that kind of audience (and he knows he had it) and what you do with it.

I'm not going to say having that audience did not have a play here, I just don't think McAdams is being punished because of the actions of others.

[mu03eng]

He didn't lose his job?  I thought he had until mid-April to apologize or else he would be fired.  What a clusterf---.

But I'll repeat myself again because it appears I'm not the only one being obtuse here... if McAdams' had a handful of blog-watchers and the story never makes it beyond that, does MU even take notice at all?  Whether this situation or the actions preceding the situation?

Nobody cares about the stupid kid who sits by himself in the corner of the playground and calls people names from 250' away... that's not a bully, that's a kid who needs help.  So he gets a slap on the wrist or two when a teacher occasionally overhears him, but everyone mostly continues to ignore the situation.  So when that same kid one day says something that gets others amp'd up enough to play along and suddenly the entire playground is engulfed in flames, all of the sudden he's a bully and needs to be punished not just for inspiring others to commit arson but also for all those times he sat by himself, completely ignored by the world?  At that point, the damage is done, and now it's time for the kangaroo court to distract the public from the reality that this could have all been avoided had someone addressed his problem before it became everyone's problem?

At the end of the day, McAdams is still responsible for what he writes, absolutely and unequivocally.  He certainly lit the match here, but if a bunch of strangers interrupt your private campfire and start dousing everything in sight with gasoline, it's pretty obtuse to point the finger only at the person who has the Bic lighter in his hand.

Let's boil it down to what McAdams did and then go from there. He publicized a grad student's actions (doesn't matter if only his dog read his blog or POTUS himself) which was contrary to MU policy and he had a documented history of doing so. He also interjected himself into a situation in which he had no standing or right to be involved. If anyone had that history be it McAdams or Putin, or Ariana Huffington or Alan Dershowitz they should face the same repercussions.

So to your point that if he didn't have a large following he wouldn't be punished, I'd flip that on his head, should MU not punish him for something he did simply because he has a "large" following??

What makes this so damn tough, and why we are fighting about it is the motivations of all the players involved. I have no doubt that some of McAdams motivations were to help the undergrad student, but I'm equally certain that he was motivated to gin up as much controversy as possible and throw as much mud on MU as possible. I think Snow and South were probably motivated by wanting to protect a Marquette student but were also equally (if not more) motivated by the opportunity to get rid of McAdams and because they despise his politics. I'm sure Lovell is motivated by wanting to back the university but he's also motivated to make an example out of McAdams to appease the faculty.

Fair numbers of people did the right things for wrong reasons and wrong things for right reasons, how do you deal with that in the context of such vitriol from all sides?

This was going to be ugly no matter what, now the question is has MU taken the path with the fewest downside risks? Too early to tell IMHO

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's interesting to see some use Grad Student and not teacher \ instructor, which she also was.  Willful omission?     

[real chili 83]

ND sucks.