Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[GGGG]

Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.

It has nothing to do with that.  It is a workplace and contract issue.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I have no idea who on the Supreme Court will rule in what manner.  And I don't care if you leave or not.

This judge's ruling was well reasoned and reaffirms why Marquette acted in the manner it did.

I'm trying to point out to you that this isn't the end of the case and MU will almost surely lose in the end.

[GGGG]

I'm trying to point out to you that this isn't the end of the case and MU will almost surely lose in the end.

It may.  But I doubt it.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It has nothing to do with that.  It is a workplace and contract issue.

It's a contractual dispute premised on the employers promise to respect academic freedom and free speech.  The justices' views on First Amendment issues will be highly relevant to how they see this case.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It may.  But I doubt it.

Gableman, Kelly, and R. Bradley are all locks for McAdams.  MU will have to climb a steep hill to pull Roggansack and Ziegler.

[GGGG]

It's a contractual dispute premised on the employers promise to respect academic freedom and free speech.  The justices' views on First Amendment issues will be highly relevant to how they see this case.

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  Academic freedom isn't a first amendment issue.  It is an issue of contract.  McAdams best defense is to argue that Marquette did not interpret the current norms of academic freedom correctly within his employment agreement. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  Academic freedom isn't a first amendment issue.  It is an issue of contract.  McAdams best defense is to argue that Marquette did not interpret the current norms of academic freedom correctly within his employment agreement.

If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you.  And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.

[jsglow]

One of the things that I thought was interesting was the judge's deference to the Marquette review and discipline process as codified in the faculty contract.  The only 'oops' he came up with was the quickly corrected early January letter written by Holz.

As I had indicated throughout the process, I was confident that MU was being very well advised by excellent outside counsel from very early on.

[GGGG]

If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you. 

It may.  It may not. They may not deem it relevant at all considering the contract in place.

And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.

And their defense is easy.  Look at the rules McAdams agreed to when he signed his contract, and look how Marquette performed against those rules.

One of the things that I thought was interesting was the judge's deference to the Marquette review and discipline process as codified in the faculty contract.  The only 'oops' he came up with was the quickly corrected early January letter written by Holz.

As I had indicated throughout the process, I was confident that MU was being very well advised by excellent outside counsel from very early on.

Exactly.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

And their defense is easy.  Look at the rules McAdams agreed to when he signed his contract, and look how Marquette performed against those rules.

I never saw a rule that said professors could get punished for naming another instructor on the internet.  Or that Lovell could ignore the faculty board's recommendation and just choose to do his own thing.

[Pakuni]

Who said anything about politics? It's about judicial philosophy on First Amendment issues.

This isn't a First Amendment case and McAdams isn't making a First Amendment argument.  If he were, it would be in federal court.
He's claiming breach of contract, hence ithe case is in state court.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

This isn't a First Amendment case and McAdams isn't making a First Amendment argument.  If he were, it would be in federal court.
He's claiming breach of contract, hence ithe case is in state court.

Thanks for the civ pro lesson.

[GGGG]

I never saw a rule that said professors could get punished for naming another instructor on the internet.  Or that Lovell could ignore the faculty board's recommendation and just choose to do his own thing.

My guess is that you have no idea what the rules say, and that you never read the ruling because the judge goes into detail of how Marquette followed them.

Again, if Marquette broke the rules that both parties agreed to, he is due damages.  Otherwise...nope.

[Sir Lawrence]

Hansher isn't overturned very often. (Meaningless aside:  he's Herb Kohl's cousin).  He's thoughtful, certainly on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but crafted an opinion that will be very easy to confirm by courts of appeal. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Hansher isn't overturned very often. (Meaningless aside:  he's Herb Kohl's cousin).  He's thoughtful, certainly on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but crafted an opinion that will be very easy to confirm by courts of appeal.

It's a decent opinion for a circuit court judge (God knows that many is Milwaukee County would do much worse).  But he made a mistake going the deference route.  That essentially flips the standard of review on fact questions from clear error to a de novo legal issue. It's just as easy to reverse as it is to affirm.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

My guess is that you have no idea what the rules say, and that you never read the ruling because the judge goes into detail of how Marquette followed them.

Again, if Marquette broke the rules that both parties agreed to, he is due damages.  Otherwise...nope.

Your guess is wrong.  There is a difference between the procedural rules of faculty review, which MU largely followed until things got to Lovell, and the substantive rules governing professor behavior. 

[Pakuni]

Thanks for the civ pro lesson.

Well apparently you needed one, counselor, if you believe a state supreme court is going to overrule a breach of contract matter on a First Amendent pleading that hasn't even been made.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Well apparently you needed one, counselor, if you believe a state supreme court is going to overrule a breach of contract matter on a First Amendent pleading that hasn't even been made.

My point was about how the justices are likely to think about these issues.  They're going to look at this, see a university practicing viewpoint discrimination and punishing a professor for third-party speech, and see it as a breach of its promise of academic freedom.

[Jockey]

Marquette won this minor battle but it will ultimately lose the war.  There aren't four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will stand for the idea that using a persons name in a blog is professional misconduct for a professor.

You need to make an attempt to understand the case before you start making your point.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You need to make an attempt to understand the case before you start making your point.

Please educate me, Oh Wise One. What is my simple brain too dumb to understand.

[Hards Alumni]

If you can't see how a judge's views of academic freedom are likely to track their views on freedom of speech, I can't help you.  And let's remember that Marquette is the one that needs the defense, not McAdams.

Where is your law degree from and where did you pass the bar?

Just wondering.

I'm guessing from your tenuous grasp on law, you don't have one, and you never took it.

[rocket surgeon]

i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons.   what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN.  this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! 

     probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section

ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny.  and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses. 

and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?

[Hards Alumni]

i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons.   what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN.  this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! 

     probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section

ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny.  and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses. 

and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?

This discussion is civil and based in facts.  You tend to create inflammatory discussions.  Just sayin'.

[warriorchick]

i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons.   what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN.  this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! 

     probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section

ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny.  and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses. 

and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?

Helpful hint: adopting 4Never's shtick is probably not the most effective way to get your point across in a serious discussion.

[Galway Eagle]

i love this discussion on doc mccadams and all as it is a local situation that hits home for a number of reasons.   what's really weird is back on jan. 18 i started a thread that updated the mccadams thing and it lasted, ohhh, about 20 nanoseconds and then the LOCKDOWN.  this one, although very interesting as well...i guess when in doubt, either follow da money or it's not what ya know, but..........got it! 

     probably should put an addendum in the rules of posting section

ok, get some popcorn and your favorite beverage cuz this is going all the way to the state supreme for some real constitutional scrutiny.  and that PR thingy-not to worry as there will be A LOT of people watching this evolve given the most recent developments involving freedom of speech on college campuses. 

and one more thing-as many of you say-in before da lock, 'ey?

Posting sources from such politically charged sites as you did is a good way to lock a thread. But hey the victim thing works for you