Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[GGGG]

MU got some bad publicity in the WSJ today on this matter.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-jesuit-school-gets-dogmatic-1515362173

NICE!!!

Marquette is doing something right if the WSJ and Mark Belling think they screwed up!!! 

Honestly, even if they lose this case it was worth it.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Honestly, even if they lose this case it was worth it.

Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus.  Now he gets to play the victim card.  They pissed off a substantial number of donors.  And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).

And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.

[warriorchick]

Who cares what that blowhard thinks about Marquette?

Are you referring to Mark Belling or mu-rara?

[GGGG]

Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus.  Now he gets to play the victim card.  They pissed off a substantial number of donors.  And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).

And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.

Because they got his fat, student-abusing a$$ off campus.  And of course he's going to play the victim.  That's what conservatives do now.

[mayfairskatingrink]

No order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court yet.

Date for Oral Argument hasn't been assigned yet.  Will be held sometime in April.

But the bypass vote was taken and passed.

Was talking to a few faculty members today at MU and they mentioned the WSJ editorial and hoped the Supreme Court would take the case so the "academic freedom" issue can be addressed.  I know many here scoff, but that overriding issue is a concern for at least some of the faculty.

[rocket surgeon]

Why? What has the school gotten out of this? They still have McAdams blogging about everything going on around campus.  Now he gets to play the victim card.  They pissed off a substantial number of donors.  And now MU is a headliner on the list of schools where political correctness reigns supreme (for right or wrong).

And all they have to show for it is the satisfaction of firing the guy.

good points-plus check to see how well the bad pub surrounding mizzou when the "can we can some muscle over here" incidents came to a head.  behind the scenes, it hurt mizzou more than they would like you to know nor care to admit.  they have 7 brand new dorms sitting empty and they are cutting 400 jobs...

  ok, MU's thing didn't go this far, but i don't think they were clinking glasses in lovell's office over the framing of the WSJ article either.  if they "poo-poo" this, they better factor in some type of change and how they are going to combat it.  i know most of you have heard the term "boiling the frog"  well, in business, this can be a real humbling experience.  worse if ya saw it coming and did nothing 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html

[Lighthouse 84]

Again, just stating that this case is not about academic freedom does not convert that conclusion into reality.  The university contractually promised McAdams that none of its conduct policies would be interpreted in a manner so as to infringe on His academic freedom.  McAdams claims that MU breached that promise by firing him of this incident; MU denies that.  Whether academic freedom was infringed here is literally the centerpiece of the case, regardless of who is right or wrong (which I happen to think should have been decided by a jury).

Exactly.  Marquette's own Faculty Statute makes it clear that a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom: "In no case, however, shall discretionary cause for dismissal be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy or action."  "Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution." 

And for the most part, as I read through this thread, I kept thinking this has been a good, respectful back and forth of opinions. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, that's why there are so many 5-4 decisions.  That's why in law school, they teach students to argue both sides of an issue.  Then I saw this:

"That's what conservatives do now,"  said the one who always has to take a topic in a certain direction. 

I'm in before Rocky locks this up.

[Pakuni]

Exactly.  Marquette's own Faculty Statute makes it clear that a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom: "In no case, however, shall discretionary cause for dismissal be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy or action."  "Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution." 

Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"Dr. McAdams?s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified."

http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf

[GGGG]

Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"Dr. McAdams?s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified."

http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf

Exactly.  Academic freedom rules aren't what is in question here.  And tenure as a lifetime contract is hardly absolute.

But if course it's going to come down to the judges.  We will see if they actually adhere to the contract that is in place or they are going turn McAdams into a martyr.  We can then add "activist judges" to the things that conservatives pretend to care about...along with "budget deficits," "state's rights" and "black people."

[MUBurrow]

And for the most part, as I read through this thread, I kept thinking this has been a good, respectful back and forth of opinions. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, that's why there are so many 5-4 decisions.  That's why in law school, they teach students to argue both sides of an issue.  Then I saw this:

"That's what conservatives do now,"

What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x".  I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.

But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA.  No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.

But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.

[GGGG]

What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x".  I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.

But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA.  No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.

But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.

Agreed.  Well stated.

[Pakuni]

What strikes me as crappy about this - as tends to be the case with "the right to say x" cases - its never a good example of "x".  I'm amenable to the argument that conservative viewpoints are somewhere between discouraged and prohibited in an increasing number of academic forums. That's not okay, needs to be looked at, and proper steps need to be taken to protect all carefully considered viewpoints and academic argument.

But that's also not what this is. This is John McAdams mashing away on his blog, refusing to be the adult in the room in what could have been a legitimate learning and growing experience for an undergrad and a TA.  No doubt he was not the only person that can be accused of failing to be a grown up here, either.

But to me, using this as the test case for a discussion of academic freedom in the legal system is a real bummer. Whether we need more professors who academically - in terms of published work, lecturing, classroom required reading - "think like McAdams thinks" is an important open question. Whether we need more professors sprinting to their blogs to name names in university drama like is pretty clear, and yet that's the frame we're using for "academic freedom" here.

Agreed.
McAdams could have just as (if not more) effectively made every point he wanted to make, been just as critical of Marquette, liberalism, fellow academics, etc., without calling out the TA by name, and there would have been no consequence to him.
The fact he chose to name Abbate and later refused to acknowledge that was a mistake is what got him fired.

[Lennys Tap]

But if course it's going to come down to the judges. 

Finally a fact instead of an insult - too bad that to get there I had to take it out of context.

[GGGG]

Finally a fact instead of an insult - too bad that to get there I had to take it out of context.

Such is life.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Ah ... but you're only telling half of the story here. Marquette's guidelines for academic freedom do say a tenured professor can't be fired for anything that is protected by academic freedom, but add that such freedom is limited by the "special obligations attendant to his position as a university professor."
The faculty committee that investigated this whole affair found that McAdams' blog post far exceeded those limitations.
"Dr. McAdams?s Nov. 9 blog post exceeded those limits by recklessly causing harm indirectly to Ms. Abbate that was substantial, foreseeable, easily avoidable, and not justified."

http://www.marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf

The problem with this argument is that a motivated administration can always identify some "special obligation" that a professor they don't like has supposedly violated and use that as pretext for a firing that intrudes on academic freedom.  MU's interpretation of its Faculty Handbook turns its contractual promise of academic freedom into a nullity. 

[Pakuni]

The problem with this argument is that a motivated administration can always identify some "special obligation" that a professor they don't like has supposedly violated and use that as pretext for a firing that intrudes on academic freedom.  MU's interpretation of its Faculty Handbook turns its contractual promise of academic freedom into a nullity.

I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?

Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics

Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"

The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.

[warriorchick]

Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a student came to Dr. McAdams and said that a particular graduate student advocates puppy torture,  and without properly vetting the information, he prints that charge along with her name and a link to her contact information. She suffers a similar fate, including dealing with death threats,  due to the reaction  from radical animal activists.
Do those of you who think this is an academic freedom issue believe McAdams should be punished in that situation? Keep in mind he had been previously reprimanded for  publishing  personal student information.

[GGGG]

I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?

Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics

Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"

The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.

Furthermore, when McAdams was reprimanded twice earlier by Marquette for calling out students in his blogs earlier, he edited his blog posts and/or acknowledged that the deed was concerning.

Then he did it again.

He has a history of being reckless in his obligations of a faculty member when it comes to working with students.  This is not an "academic freedom" issue.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Let me pose a hypothetical: suppose a student came to Dr. McAdams and said that a particular graduate student advocates puppy torture,  and without properly vetting the information, he prints that charge along with her name and a link to her contact information. She suffers a similar fate, including dealing with death threats,  due to the reaction  from radical animal activists.
Do those of you who think this is an academic freedom issue believe McAdams should be punished in that situation? Keep in mind he had been previously reprimanded for  publishing  personal student information.

I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.

Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack.  Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?   

[GGGG]

I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.

Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack.  Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?   

Yes.  If by "sloppy blogging" you mean "a history of naming students in his/her blog and was warned of the inappropriateness of that behavior previously."

[warriorchick]

I don't think a tenured professor should be fired in your hypothetical, even if warned previously about similar behavior.

Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack.  Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?

Sorry for the very extreme example here, but you seem to excuse all the others:

If he published your mother's name and address and said that she has rape fantasies that she hopes someone helps her fulfill, that would be okay?

[Pakuni]

Yes.  If by "sloppy blogging" you mean "a history of naming students in his/her blog and was warned of the inappropriateness of that behavior previously."

I found interesting and telling that he chose to reframe McAdams' behavior as a matter of mere sloppiness rather than wilful malice. Like, writing her name seven times and including a link to her personal blog was simply an oversight.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I'm not sure I understand your point. If your belief is that virtually anything can be trumped up and identified as a violation of the "special obligations," is it then your argument that academic freedom grants a tenured professor to say anything without consequence?
Or, more likely, are you just arguing against this particular interpretation of "special obligations" since Marquette's interpretation leads to consequences for McAdams?

My point is that limiting academic freedom based on a vague concept such as the "special obligations" of professors seriously undercuts the entire concept of academic freedom.  My view, with respect to issues affecting academic scholarship, politics, the university, or the education system generally, professors should be allowed to say whatever they like without fear of punishment, short of immediate incitement to violence.  Otherwise you have administrators like Lovell acting as thought police. 

Regardless, fortunately for us, the American Association of University Professors identifies these obligations in its statement on professional ethics, and this is what MU relied on to determine McAdams was in violation.
The statement reads, in part:
"(Professors) respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students."
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-professional-ethics

Is it your suggestion that ridiculing a student by name in a public forum falls in line with a professor's ethical duty to "avoid "exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students?"

First, none of what you quoted actually comes from MU's Faculty Handbook; the fact MU has to reach beyond its own materials to find support for its arguments is part of the problem. Second, I'm not sure how McAdams "exploited," "harassed," or "discriminated" against Abbate; such words do little to clarify things beyond vague notions that actually appear in the Faculty Handbook such as "special obligations."  Third, Abbate was not McAdams' student; I think there is an important distinction between a professor's obligations to his own students and his obligations to graduate students teaching classes on the other side of campus.     

The great irony in all this may be that so-called conservatives are asking the courts wrest away a private enterprise's right to interpret its own employee guidelines based on a "right" (aka academic freedom) that exists in no federal or state constitution (or statute of which I'm aware).
Judicial activism is only bad when it helps the other side's cause. Judicial restraint is only necessary in some cases.

No one is saying it is unlawful for MU have whatever standard of academic freedom it wants on campus.  What they're saying is MU can't simultaneously promise professors via contract that they will given identical academic freedom as protected for public school professors by the First Amendment, and then turn around and violate such protections. No judge will have to rely on anything other than the terms of MU's own Faculty Handbook, drafted by MU itself, in order to rule in McAdams' favor.  You seem to think that any result that you don't like is "judicial activism."   

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Sorry for the very extreme example here, but you seem to excuse all the others:

If he published your mother's name and address and said that she has rape fantasies that she hopes someone helps her fulfill, that would be okay?

No. That would have nothing to do with academics and would potentially be illegal conduct.  As you acknowledge, its a bad hypothetical. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I found interesting and telling that he chose to reframe McAdams' behavior as a matter of mere sloppiness rather than wilful malice. Like, writing her name seven times and including a link to her personal blog was simply an oversight.

Okay, let's accept your critique.  Let's assume the English professor in my hypothetical below acted with "actual malice" because she hates anyone who opposes gay marriage.  Does that mean she should be fired for her blog post?

Alternatively, imagine that Abbate had instead told students that no arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be allowed in her class because such ideas are offensive to the deeply religious students at a Catholic institution, a gay student reported this to a left-leaning English professor on campus who blogged about it in the same style as McAdams, and then LGBT activists on the Internet attack.  Should the English professor be fired in that scenario, even if he/she has a track record of sloppy blogging?