Judge dismisses all of McAdams claims against Marquette

[jsglow]

Rocket, this has been an interesting discussion about the case and the ruling, nothing really more.

Look, I swing different politically from several scoopers who have posted in this thread.  I think most folks know where I stand on that spectrum.  But it's interesting how some of us can have enlightening discussions without going down the rabbit hole.

Oh, by the way, somehow I missed the McAdams story this morning on Fox & Friends.  Oh, they haven't had a segment?  Shocked. (PS, I hate ALL fake news.)

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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.

If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school.  Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb.  McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.

I never understood this case from the school's perspective.  It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.

[GGGG]

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

If you don't understand the difference between what is being said here and what you posted, I don't know what to say.

[GGGG]

If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school.  Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb.  McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.

I never understood this case from the school's perspective.  It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.

It's a workplace issue.  Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.

[warriorchick]

If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school.  Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb.  McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.

I never understood this case from the school's perspective.  It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.

The judge must have been in the 95th percentile.

[jsglow]

If you must know, I passed the WI bar the first time in the 93rd percentile and made law review at a T-14 school.  Just because someone thinks MU's position is both wrong on the law and strategically ill-advised does not mean they're dumb.  McAdams' lawyers are no slouches, whatever you may think of their ideology.

I never understood this case from the school's perspective.  It's bad press, pisses off donors, and almost certainly a loser at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  All of which just adds to the conclusion that it's about a personal vendetta.

Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre.  He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief.  Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it.  Frankly something that should have been done years earlier.  I'm not going to pretend to argue law here.  But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy.  If compensation is due, so be it.  Just get the eff off my campus forever.

[GGGG]

Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre.  He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief.  Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it.  Frankly something that should have been done years earlier.  I'm not going to pretend to argue law here.  But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy.  If compensation is due, so be it.  Just get the eff off my campus forever.

Exactly.  That's why it is hardly a PR disaster regardless.

[jesmu84]

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?

I see you've taken on the victim mentality and "everyone's against me" philosophy of former posters

[Ellenson Guerrero]

It's a workplace issue.  Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.

Lots of cases involve "workplace issues."  That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them.  But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.

[wadesworld]

Somewhere along the line, John, truly a mentor of mine 35 years ago, became an overbearing abusive ogre.  He has a repeated history of public abuse, all the way down to the undergraduate student level as was mentioned in the brief.  Finally, FINALLY Marquette had had enough and did something about it.  Frankly something that should have been done years earlier.  I'm not going to pretend to argue law here.  But in the world of right and wrong, this one is easy.  If compensation is due, so be it.  Just get the eff off my campus forever.

Yup.

Lots of cases involve "workplace issues."  That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them.  But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.

Fairly certain that's not the message the administration is sending.

[B. McBannerson]

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

CBS is a politically charged site?    Wasn't this the subject in January, that he won an award?
 
http://www.cbs58.com/story/34601334/suspended-marquette-professor-honored-at-cpac


Which once again goes to show why politics shouldn't be allowed here.  If McAdams won the case yesterday, would this thread continue to go on?  The dividing lines of the same people always on the same sides of the arguments. 

[B. McBannerson]

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.

You wondered wrong.  Guerrero has a good grasp on the law.  The thing is, there are great lawyers and great judges in this country that often disagree with the law, which is why we have so many 5-4 decisions and overturning of cases.  Does that make those on one side lacking grasp of the law, or do they not line up with your viewpoints?  The law isn't cut and dry. 

[GGGG]

Lots of cases involve "workplace issues."  That doesn't mean it makes sense to spend years in highly divisive litigation on them.  But, if the administration's goal was to send the message that only particular types of ideas are permissible on campus, mission accomplished I suppose.

But this isn't what Marquette is doing unless you are trying to be a member of rocket's perpetual victim class.

As I have said all along, there are plenty of professors at Marquette who believe as McAdams does and express those beliefs.  The difference being that after being reprimanded for a workplace violation at one time, he decided to commit the same violation again. 

If you can point to someone who believes the opposite of McAdams, and committed the same types of violations but was retained, you may have a point.  Remember this is the same school that fired Susannah Bartlow after the Shakur mural issue.

Hard to argue this is a political issue.

[Galway Eagle]

CBS is a politically charged site?    Wasn't this the subject in January, that he won an award?
 
http://www.cbs58.com/story/34601334/suspended-marquette-professor-honored-at-cpac


Which once again goes to show why politics shouldn't be allowed here.  If McAdams won the case yesterday, would this thread continue to go on?  The dividing lines of the same people always on the same sides of the arguments.

He didn't post from CBS he posted from freerepublic

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=53191.msg889631#msg889631

[Ellenson Guerrero]

But this isn't what Marquette is doing unless you are trying to be a member of rocket's perpetual victim class.

As I have said all along, there are plenty of professors at Marquette who believe as McAdams does and express those beliefs.  The difference being that after being reprimanded for a workplace violation at one time, he decided to commit the same violation again. 

If you can point to someone who believes the opposite of McAdams, and committed the same types of violations but was retained, you may have a point.  Remember this is the same school that fired Susannah Bartlow after the Shakur mural issue.

Hard to argue this is a political issue.

The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:

https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/

Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow.  My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.   

[Babybluejeans]

Some may disagree with this outcome that flatly rejects the victim narrative of The Great Wise One. But it shouldn't be for debate whether the First Amendment is at issue here. The WI Supreme Court can't and shouldn't raise a First Amendment issue sua sponte when the plaintiff didn't bring such a claim and the parties didn't argue it. The politics of the WI Supreme Court may be relevant in certain cases but they're not foolish enough to do McAdams' fighting for him.

[muwarrior69]

If they win will they fill his spot with a like minded professor? I won't hold my breath.

[Benny B]

Honestly... at this point, should any of us still care about this?  It's not like this is a precedent-setting case that could be the cornerstone of future action regarding free speech, students' rights, professors' rights, etc. on college campuses, i.e. this was such a strange case to begin with that I can't see how any part of it has any relevance to anyone except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum who are going to grab their pitchforks anytime it seems like someone on the other side (or even the same side) starts making hay.

In other words, is this really a battle that college-educated people should be fighting/supporting?  Can't we just leave bullshiite like this to the hippies and rednecks to discuss?

[Hards Alumni]

It's a workplace issue.  Very easy from a legal and PR perspective why they chose the route they did.

Exactly!

[jsglow]

The fact that Marquette still employs administrators who affirmatively obstruct student organization's free expression makes it difficult to accept that the university is committed to being an open marketplace of diverse viewpoints:

https://marquettewire.org/3964581/news/member-of-marquette-faculty-attempts-to-block-ben-shapiro-event/

Edit: Also, Marquette never fired Bartlow.  My suspicion is that she may have been given incentives to resign.

Wow are you selective.  You do know that Shapiro spoke with the full support of the university, yes?  And as to Bartlow, yes Mike 'fired' her.  He fired her within 48 hours after learning of the mural.  Whether that firing took the form of a compelled resignation is irrelevant.  Moreover, he directed Facility Management to paint over that offensive thing before the sun went down.  Guys did it on Sunday afternoon.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Wow are you selective.  You do know that Shapiro spoke with the full support of the university, yes?  And as to Bartlow, yes Mike 'fired' her.  He fired her within 48 hours after learning of the mural.  Whether that firing took the form of a compelled resignation is irrelevant.  Moreover, he directed Facility Management to paint over that offensive thing before the sun went down.  Guys did it on Sunday afternoon.

He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one.  And with respect to Bartlow, it is relevant whether she was terminated for cause or encouraged to leave with a severance package. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Honestly... at this point, should any of us still care about this?  It's not like this is a precedent-setting case that could be the cornerstone of future action regarding free speech, students' rights, professors' rights, etc. on college campuses, i.e. this was such a strange case to begin with that I can't see how any part of it has any relevance to anyone except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum who are going to grab their pitchforks anytime it seems like someone on the other side (or even the same side) starts making hay.

In other words, is this really a battle that college-educated people should be fighting/supporting?  Can't we just leave bullshiite like this to the hippies and rednecks to discuss?

If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet. 

[GGGG]

He asked for an example of similar misbehavior by liberal employees going unpunished, I gave him one. 

1. How do you know she went unpunished?
2. It's hardly similar behavior.

[GGGG]

If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet. 

That's not why he was fired.  C'mon...at least pretend to be objective here.

[warriorchick]

If I were a professor, I certainly would be concerned about a precedent establishing that I could be fired for things third-parties said on the Internet.

The guy didn't just publish her name, he put a link in his blog to her contact information and her personal website.  You cannot tell me that doing that is not an obvious invitation to his readers to harrass her.  And for a professor to do that to a student is inexcusable.