Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[Pakuni]

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?

Yes. Attacking a student by name in a public forum not only serves no legitimate academic purpose, but is a fireable offense. The fact that Abbate received threats and harassment, which ought to have been foreseen by McAdams, makes this all the more obvious.

Again, McAdams could have effectively made his point and issued his critique without naming her. The fact that he chose to do so - again and again and again - merely confirms that he acted not out of academic pursuit, but out of malfeasance.

[Pakuni]

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.

This is not correct.

Second, I'm not sure how McAdams "exploited," "harassed," or "discriminated" against Abbate;

He publicly attacked her character and ridiculed her abilities to draw eyeballs to his blog. If you don't see that as harassment, at the very least, I can't help you any more.

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.     

No, there isn't. You're making things up now.

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,

You'll have to point out for me the portion of the First Amendment that grants academic freedom.

You seem to think that any result that you don't like is "judicial activism."

Silly ad hominem. I guess that's what we've come to.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

My problem with this whole mess is that once again MU Administration allows a minor problem to become a BFD, allowing Mark Belling to add a chapter to his "I hate Marquette"  book.

Who's that?

[muwarrior69]

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2211083
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You'll have to point out for me the portion of the First Amendment that grants academic freedom.

Here's the cite to the Supreme Court case: Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.").

[warriorchick]

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

He might get arrested, but according to the way I understand your argument, he shouldn't get fired. 

[GGGG]

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2211083
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=273814

So what?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

He might get arrested, but according to the way I understand your argument, he shouldn't get fired.

You don't understand my argument then.  Your rape hypothetical is different on two important dimensions: 1) the conduct at issue is not contractually protected by the provisions in the Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom because the speech has nothing to do with academics/the university/education; 2) the conduct in your hypothetical is potentially illegal (depending on what exactly was written) because it could be found to constitute incitement to violence not protected by the First Amendment and I assume MU's Faculty Handbook has some provision that allows tenured professors to be removed based on criminal conduct.   

[GGGG]

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. 

That is absolutely ridiculous.  McAdams could have done every thing he did without naming Abbatte and he would have been well within his bounds.  He's done and said all sorts of things in his blog that were "anti-Marquette" or "anti-administration," and the ONLY time he was reprimanded by Marquette is when he named students.  Which he did repeatedly. 

There is zero evidence that Marquette acts as "thought-police" when it comes to tenured faculty members.  Oh unless the faculty member is a lesbian and the local bishop gets his nose out of whack.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's weird seeing people on the right advocating for academic freedom and tenure...

McAdams was a bad teacher. Not in the classroom,  he was actually great,  but ridiculing students by name in a public forum makes you a bad teacher. He needed to go. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. He was bad at his job and needed to be fired.

[Pakuni]

Here's the cite to the Supreme Court case: Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) ("Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.").

Keyishian deals with a government entity (not private university) dismissing and barring employees for political activity. Those employees just so happened to be university faculty. In other words, not only irrelevant to McAdams, but also not relevant to academic freedom in the context you're using it.
Moreover, the case very clearly does not state academic freedom is an absolute First Amedment right. But rather that "government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Keyishian deals with a government entity (not private university) dismissing and barring employees for political activity. Those employees just so happened to be university faculty. In other words, not only irrelevant to McAdams, but also not relevant to academic freedom in the context you're using it.
Moreover, the case very clearly does not state academic freedom is an absolute First Amedment right. But rather that "government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity."

Its a complicated topic isn't it.  Maybe you should refrain from bald proclamations about how the First Amendment and academic freedom have no relevancy to McAdams' case.  (Also, as I noted in my post above, MU contractually promises to afford its professors the same FA protections as available to those at public schools, so your first point is a distinction without a difference.)

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It's weird seeing people on the right advocating for academic freedom and tenure...

McAdams was a bad teacher. Not in the classroom,  he was actually great,  but ridiculing students by name in a public forum makes you a bad teacher. He needed to go. It has nothing to do with academic freedom. He was bad at his job and needed to be fired.

If being bad at your job were enough to get tenured professors fired, there would be even more out of work PhDs...

[Pakuni]

Its a complicated topic isn't it.  Maybe you should refrain from bald proclamations about how the First Amendment and academic freedom have no relevancy to McAdams' case.  (Also, as I noted in my post above, MU contractually promises to afford its professors the same FA protections as available to those at public schools, so your first point is a distinction without a difference.)

1. I don't believe I made any such proclamation.
2. I do not believe McAdams' firing is a First Amendment case. Neither do you, judging by your earlier statements in this thread.

[Lighthouse 84]

2. I don't not believe McAdams' firing is a First Amendment case. Neither do you, judging by your earlier statements in this thread.

It's a breach of contract case with first amendment undertones.  Contractually, MU can't dismiss faculty to retrain their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution.  If, it's ultimately held that the dismissal was used to restrain McAdams in his First Amendment rights, they breached his contract.  The First Amendment is absolutely relevant in this case.

[Pakuni]

It's a breach of contract case with first amendment undertones.  Contractually, MU can't dismiss faculty to retrain their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution.  If, it's ultimately held that the dismissal was used to restrain McAdams in his First Amendment rights, they breached his contract.  The First Amendment is absolutely relevant in this case.

Apparently I'm the only one around here who hasn't had his hands on McAdams' contract, supposedly stating that he can say anything without repercussion.
Problem is, that's not actually true. The faculty handbook, to which he agreed to abide, states that he should "exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others," among other limitations.

Again, it's not as First Amendment case. It's a contract case.

[GGGG]

Tenured professors getting fired for violations of the terms of their employment happens pretty regularly.  Absolutely a contract case and not a first amendment one.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If being bad at your job were enough to get tenured professors fired, there would be even more out of work PhDs...

And there should be more out of work PhDs. But that's an entirely other issue.

The point I was making that McAdams violated his terms of employment and was fired for it. That is not protected by tenure or academic freedom. He could have left the student's name out of his blog and this would have been a non-issue.

The fact that people I know have criticized the reach of tenure and academic freedom in the past are now using it to try to defend a professor who bullied students at his place of employment just because of the professor's political leanings is amusing to me.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

And there should be more out of work PhDs. But that's an entirely other issue.

The point I was making that McAdams violated his terms of employment and was fired for it. That is not protected by tenure or academic freedom. He could have left the student's name out of his blog and this would have been a non-issue.

The fact that people I know have criticized the reach of tenure and academic freedom in the past are now using it to try to defend a professor who bullied students at his place of employment just because of the professor's political leanings is amusing to me.

I get you point and can agree to disagree.  I just think it amounts to holding professors responsible for the evils of unknown third parties, which has an obvious chilling effect.

And to your last point, that is likely a good amount of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  It is equally ironic to hear liberals bemoaning the evils of free speech and academic freedom when they championed such protections when they benefitted them while in the minority on college campuses in the mid-twentieth century.

[Jay Bee]

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.

^^^^ ban dis guy

[Jockey]

It is equally ironic to hear liberals bemoaning the evils of free speech and academic freedom when they championed such protections when they benefitted them while in the minority on college campuses in the mid-twentieth century.

This sentence perfectly sums up why your entire argument on this thread is ridiculous.

I know you play a lawyer on Scoop, but you simply tried to argue politics rather the the issues of the case. You lost many pages ago.

[rocky_warrior]

^^^^ ban dis guy

Give it up.  By your superior logic we should have banned this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17241.msg170038#msg170038
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=29540.msg342693#msg342693
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47304.msg722097#msg722097
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=50154.msg794410#msg794410

[Jay Bee]

Give it up.  By your superior logic we should have banned this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17241.msg170038#msg170038
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=29540.msg342693#msg342693
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47304.msg722097#msg722097
and this guy...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=50154.msg794410#msg794410

FAKE NEWS! Those were all pre-the May 2016 sticky re: No Politics Zone! Sad!

[rocky_warrior]

How about this one...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=4528.0

[Jay Bee]

How about this one...
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=4528.0

No good. Predates me and isn't stickied. Just another old, lost thread. #BanSultan