WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Ellenson Guerrero]

What ambiguities or holes in WI law require the Supreme Court to establish precedent in this case?

As I understand it, the case is strictly a matter of whether Marquette violated their contract with McAdams by firing him for things they said they wouldn't. To the extent this case has any bearing on academic freedom or any of the larger drums being beat, that is only true inasmuch as Marquette's standard tenure contracts use language that is commonly used by other universities, correct? If the Supreme Court rules against Marquette, they (and all other universities keeping a close eye on this) could just adjust their standard tenure contracts going forward?

While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility.  If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.

The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.

[Pakuni]

Seeing conservatives fighting for stronger protections for tenure is hilarious

Not only that, but they want judges to tell a private enterprise how it can discipline its employee.
It's only judicial activism when the court takes the other side.

[GGGG]

The other threads turned into that and they were locked. You're trying to turn this thread into one as well.  I'm interested in seeing how this plays out from a legal standpoint and haven't prejudged how the Wisconsin Supremes will rule since it's difficult to tell yet what specific issues they'll ultimately hang their collective hat on.

As an aside, I'm not a fan of tenure.  Too many bad professors out there with seemingly lifetime gigs.

Good for you.

[GGGG]

Who? There might be such professors, but not many. And if they did get fired, it was probably for something criminal. This case is many things, but a run-of-the-mill employment law claim is not one of them.

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2017/12/uw-platteville-panel-recommends-firing-whistleblower-professor/

[MUBurrow]

While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility.  If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.

The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.

But wouldn't the bolded section only be true if McAdams were challenging MU's professor conduct policy in the first place (is he? I must confess I haven't read the pleading) rather than challenging whether MU followed it?

And as for the first part - are public schools' policies hemmed in by the First Amendment if the policy itself doesn't reference it? My understanding is that the government qua employer can curtail speech in the employee's performance of his or her job duties. To me there seems to be a tension between arguing both "I can say this because it should be protected in the name of academic freedom" and "You can't stop me from saying this because I'm saying it off the clock."

[Ellenson Guerrero]

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2017/12/uw-platteville-panel-recommends-firing-whistleblower-professor/

Sounds like she’s pursuing a lawsuit.  Maybe McAdams’ lawsuit will clarify the law for hers.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Today's edition of the WSJ had its fourth blurb on this matter in the past month.  Not real in-depth though. https://www.wsj.com/articles/marquette-and-the-first-amendment-1517181797

[forgetful]

While MU could change their faculty handbook in response to a loss at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, public schools subject to the First Amendment have less flexibility.  If MU made its policies more restrictive than public schools that could put them at a disadvantage in recruiting professors, at least in theory.

The big legal question here is the intersection between academic freedom and professor conduct policies-how much can the latter eat into the former without leading to a breach on the part of the school.

If MU changed their faculty handbook so that people like McAdams' would get fired for what he did, it would have zero effect on recruiting.  Most faculty think he should be fired, he violated fundamental ethical principles of academia. 

And the UW system is highly criticized for not protecting tenure.  They have lost many of their top faculty because of changes the current state government put in place regarding tenure.  It is regarded as a government hostile to academics, and it is far far harder for them to recruit top faculty.  MU would not be affected at all by a change of wording.

I don't think you realize that faculty across the nation think what McAdams did was horribly wrong, and that he should be fired for his actions.  Those that look at this solely based on an academic freedom/tenure standpoint think he should be fired.  It is only those that look at this through a political lens (and then the far-right conservative lens) that think he was wronged. 

[Eldon]

If MU changed their faculty handbook so that people like McAdams' would get fired for what he did, it would have zero effect on recruiting.  Most faculty think he should be fired, he violated fundamental ethical principles of academia. 

And the UW system is highly criticized for not protecting tenure.  They have lost many of their top faculty because of changes the current state government put in place regarding tenure.  It is regarded as a government hostile to academics, and it is far far harder for them to recruit top faculty.  MU would not be affected at all by a change of wording.

I don't think you realize that faculty across the nation think what McAdams did was horribly wrong, and that he should be fired for his actions.  Those that look at this solely based on an academic freedom/tenure standpoint think he should be fired. It is only those that look at this through a political lens (and then the far-right conservative lens) that think he was wronged.

False, false, and false.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

False, false, and false.

Only anecdotal evidence on my part but every staff and faculty member I have spoken to about it think he should be fired.

[forgetful]

False, false, and false.

As a faculty member, I have talked about this case with numerous faculty at multiple institutions.  I have yet to meet one that is aware of the case that doesn't think he should be fired. 

That includes three of my colleagues that I would consider far-right wing conservatives. 

If you want to know of a revocation of tenure that did greatly upset faculty nation wide, I will point you to this one. 

https://www.chronicle.com/article/President-of-U-of-Southern/101751


I remember when that one occurred. Faculty around the country universally condemned the action of the University.  I'm sure there were some though, that thought iit was ok, but I never met any.  This one is the opposite end of the spectrum.  It is hard to find a person (in academia) who thinks McAdams was wronged.

It is certainly possible (albeit extremely improbable) that somehow I know only faculty that represent the minority.  But I find it hard to believe that if my two peers who think Trump is a savior and Roy Moore is an american hero also think McAdams should be fired, that they are also in the minority.  Anecdotal, yes, but sufficient to say that the probability I'm right is very very high.

[rocket surgeon]

I haven't insulted anyone, made this about politics, or resorted to name calling anywhere.  Its silly if our alma mater is in litigation with a professor in front of the highest court in the state and we can't have a topic on it in the freakin' Superbar. If people don't want to hear about McAdams, there are plenty of other threads about the Bucks, baseball, snowstorms and a million other things that have nothing to do with MU.

Very well stated-thank you for the clarity!  Sully’ s already projecting his “cya” moment-Always gonna be those who only respect the process when it goes their way, but “co-exist” ehy’ na?

[rocket surgeon]

Bullsh*t.  It will shake out in McAdams favor because of the political make up of the court.  I mean, it's the entire reason the court took up the case.  I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years. 

Why this one?  I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.

You really are trying to get this one locked up aren’t you. How’s about a little sabbatical mr victim. I spose you would rather have the 9th circuit have this one-what a surprise

[Herman Cain]

I am Pro McAdams and hope he wins the case. 

[Jables1604]

In before the lock.

[rocket surgeon]

I think this could be a very interesting thread if someone doesn’t “scorch earth” it. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I am Pro McAdams and hope he wins the case.

Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here.  If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.

Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams".  Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits.  Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people.  Instead, it is all about party...party over country. 

I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.

[Herman Cain]

Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here.  If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.

Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams".  Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits.  Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people.  Instead, it is all about party...party over country. 

I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.

This is a first amendment case which is being tried through the prism of a contract claim .   I have felt that since the beginning.

I like at this case in two ways. First as a citizen , who comes from a cultural heritage where many of my ancestors rights were completely trashed. Second, As a former Trustee of several Educational Institutions, where I would want our administration to have the maximum flexibility with legal issues.

In this case I side with free speech rights. The Educational Institution can easily amend its contracts.

The people opposing McAdams out of opposition to his political beliefs need to be careful what they wish for. If McAdams were to lose this case, it would further strengthen the hand of the Institutional world to suppress speech. Today the institutional world at all levels is controlled by left wingers , that may not necessarily be the case in the future.

Also the hallmark of the Jesuit system is they take people how to think about issues not what  they should think. I think MU really needs to take an introspective look at itself and examine if it has gone to far in the direction of the latter at the expense of the former.

[GGGG]

It most certainly is not a first amendment case.

[Pakuni]

So, Herm believes McAdams has a First Amendment right to bully a student, but the New York Times doesn't have a First Amendment right to report news.
That's one Hot Taek.

[Jockey]

Let's pretend that you were a real person and not just the character that you, for some odd reason, like to portray here.  If you were a real person expressing this opinion-- and there are plenty-- it truly illuminates the political problem in this country.

Your make believe persona is "pro McAdams".  Not "the facts of the case", but "pro McAdams" because of the side of the political aisle on which he sits.  Facts simply don't matter to a minority-but-still-too-large swath of people.  Instead, it is all about party...party over country. 

I know I'm old and my idealistic notions of what our country should be are out of favor, but I think this tribalism is destroying the country.

Amen.

And I got a great laugh from Cain's response.

[jesmu84]

This is a first amendment case which is being tried through the prism of a contract claim .   I have felt that since the beginning.

I like at this case in two ways. First as a citizen , who comes from a cultural heritage where many of my ancestors rights were completely trashed. Second, As a former Trustee of several Educational Institutions, where I would want our administration to have the maximum flexibility with legal issues.

In this case I side with free speech rights. The Educational Institution can easily amend its contracts.

The people opposing McAdams out of opposition to his political beliefs need to be careful what they wish for. If McAdams were to lose this case, it would further strengthen the hand of the Institutional world to suppress speech. Today the institutional world at all levels is controlled by left wingers , that may not necessarily be the case in the future.

Also the hallmark of the Jesuit system is they take people how to think about issues not what  they should think. I think MU really needs to take an introspective look at itself and examine if it has gone to far in the direction of the latter at the expense of the former.

Before I respond further... What is the "institutional world"?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again. Conservatives arguing for increased protections of tenure is hilarious.

This is one of the clearest examples of party over country that I have seen. It is also a great example of cutting the nose to spite the face. If McAdams wins, then tenure will be strengthened. So the next time a professor allows say a mural of Assata Shakur to be painted on school grounds....the university may not be able to fire him/her....I bet the pro McAdams crowd would love that.

If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.

There's a lot of noise around this case: first amendment, academic freedom, tenure, contracts, etc. Lovell did the right thing by ignoring all of it and doing what was right rather than worrying about what was politically sound. He had a professor who cyberbullied one of his students....after being warned not to do so. Regardless of how good a teach that professor is, he needs to be removed from the classroom.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.

This exactly.  It is a matter of "what is the right thing to do regardless of political alignment?" versus "which side is my team on?"

[Herman Cain]

Again. Conservatives arguing for increased protections of tenure is hilarious.

This is one of the clearest examples of party over country that I have seen. It is also a great example of cutting the nose to spite the face. If McAdams wins, then tenure will be strengthened. So the next time a professor allows say a mural of Assata Shakur to be painted on school grounds....the university may not be able to fire him/her....I bet the pro McAdams crowd would love that.

If a liberal professor did the same thing to a student for having conservative beliefs those arguing for McAdam's would be screaming for that professor's head. Me? I would want both professors fired.

There's a lot of noise around this case: first amendment, academic freedom, tenure, contracts, etc. Lovell did the right thing by ignoring all of it and doing what was right rather than worrying about what was politically sound. He had a professor who cyberbullied one of his students....after being warned not to do so. Regardless of how good a teach that professor is, he needs to be removed from the classroom.

This exactly.  It is a matter of "what is the right thing to do regardless of political alignment?" versus "which side is my team on?"

Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.

Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.