WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Jay Bee]

*feels.

It would help if you actually used proper sentence structure and didn't simply write in a stream of consciousness.

#bansultan

[rocket surgeon]

*feels.

It would help if you actually used proper sentence structure and didn't simply write in a stream of consciousness.

no!  past tense-he hasn't HAD to (thank God) argue with you for quite some time and now i know why.  his banning was really a blessing for him to keep maintain sanity and grow old with his family.

      you can't find anything more to argue about with my previous premise, so you have to start a new argument??  i apologize to all the people out there who truly suffer with OCD and i am not minimizing it in any way, but you got some form of it that's screaming for help dude

[GGGG]

no!  past tense-he hasn't HAD to (thank God) argue with you for quite some time and now i know why.  his banning was really a blessing for him to keep maintain sanity and grow old with his family.

      you can't find anything more to argue about with my previous premise, so you have to start a new argument??  i apologize to all the people out there who truly suffer with OCD and i am not minimizing it in any way, but you got some form of it that's screaming for help dude

What I am saying is that it is oftentimes hard to understand what you are trying to say because you don't use proper punctuation and your thoughts tend to meander all over the place.

[WarriorDad]

It throws you for a loop to see nuns not in habits?  In 2018?

Ha ha. That's why I said sometimes.  And yes, sometimes it does.  For all my informative years at Catholic school the nuns were in their habits, that becomes ingrained in you for 12 years of schooling.  At times my wife and I will be at a church function and we may be volunteering or whatever and Sister Fill in the Blank introduces herself and the sister part does, at times, throw me for a loop.  In the back of my mind, oh you are a nun. 

Some habits die hard  (pun intended).   

[WarriorDad]

Please tell me the names of the companies who give a university's acceptance rate significant weight when they are looking at resumes.

It is my experience that most hiring managers look at the success that graduates of a particular university (and to drill down further, graduates of a particular program at a particular university) have out in the workplace.  The average hiring manager or HR recruiter has no idea what any particular school's acceptance rate is. 

If I found out that someone in my organization passed on an otherwise highly-qualified candidate because of their alma mater's acceptance rate, I would have to have a serious conversation with them.

I believe you may have misunderstood me.  What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain.  They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were.  Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish.  I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process.  Went something like this

Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place.  I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions

[warriorchick]

I believe you may have misunderstood me.  What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain.  They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were.  Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish.  I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process.  Went something like this

Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place.  I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions

If a company stupidly limits its search to graduates of 30 or so schools, Marquette is not going to be in the mix anyway. It is a good school, but not close to being top 30 overall based on any sort of arbitrary cutoff.

[WarriorDad]

I have tried to educate myself on this case over the weekend.  One name that continues to pop up is someone named Paul Quirk.  He graduated from MU in '71 and is a professor of Political Science at University of British Columbia.  He has responded to at least 5 MU Tribune articles and/or McAdams blog.

I suspect a friend of McAdams? 

https://marquettewire.org/3946597/tribune/viewpoints/editorials/editorial-announcement-to-suspend-mcadams-disappoints-and-shows-universitys-weakness/

"I congratulate the editors on the severe, fully warranted criticism of the University’s conduct. But the editorial misses the essential point: the Faculty Review Committee, contrary to the University’s hope, rejected dismissal as an appropriate punishment. It recognized that McAdams had a right to blog critically about Ms. Abbate. The University is attempting to override that recommendation, bringing dismissal back in through McAdams’ predictable refusal to apologize.

As a matter of the University’s contractual obligations to respect McAdam’s academic freedom, the committee’s judgment on this point is not a close call. And it is disappointing that the editors fail to recognize this fact. They call McAdams’ language “cruel” and “harsh,” without quoting any of it. In fact, he accused Abbate of using what he called a standard liberal tactic of shutting down debate. That’s as harsh as it got. He said nothing remotely unusual for journalistic or internet debate on a controversial academic-political issue. But leaving aside what he actually said, do the editors really want a university where debate is never “harsh,” and where an administrator’s or a committee’s finding of “harshness” in debate will result in punishment, even dismissal?

The result of the University’s decision will be another year or two of deservedly bad publicity as a lawsuit proceeds, followed by McAdams’ reinstatement with back pay, and I suspect, punitive damages. The University’s weakness has been in failing to recognize, and explain to McAdams’ critics, its obligation to protect academic freedom."

Paul Quirk MU A&S 1971
Professor of Political Science
Univerity of British Columbia

[GGGG]

I am shocked that a professor feels that the Faculty Review Committee's recommendation should serve as the final say in the matter.

[Babybluejeans]

I am shocked that a professor feels that the Faculty Review Committee's recommendation should serve as the final say in the matter.

Right, just like when interest groups submit amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases. They're looking out for their interests, and should be taken with a large grain of Wisconsin rock salt.

[Disco Hippie]

I believe you may have misunderstood me.  What I am saying is companies believe the schools have already done the weeding out for perspective candidates and some of these hiring managers concentrate only on 30 or so schools because they believe that anyone going through their hallowed halls is the top of the food chain.  They value that only a few were admitted in the first place as it were.  Call it an indirect association or direct, whichever you wish.  I didn't care for the elitism, but that was the thought process.  Went something like this

Graduate A, B, C is very smart or never would have been admitted to school in first place.  I'm not wasting time on graduates outside of these 30 institutions

Warriors Chick and Dad both make valid points here.   I'm an East coast guy and can absolutely verify that the elitism Dad is referring to is alive and well.  Thankfully, that elitism is mostly limited to the Investment Banking and broader financial services industry, and even they have cast a wider net in recent years which is a good thing.  I'm not aware of any HR dept that uses acceptance rates as a viable metric to evaluate entry level hires.  As Chick says, most companies develop a good rapport with local universities they've had positive hiring experiences from in the past and if that institution continues to produce productive grads with good attitudes they'll continue to hire from them.  At my company, entry level candidates with degrees from Ivy and other prestigious national university and national liberal arts schools definitely warrant a second look, as I suspect these grads do anywhere, but my company hires from a very broad range of colleges and graduates of every class of institution have performed both very well and not so well so I agree with Chick that acceptance rates don't matter in the larger employment context.

That said, I've stated many times on here that MU's current admissions policy is not sensible, and acceptance rates do matter a lot in terms of the perception of an institution from prospective students and their parents.  I've had this discussion with several folks in the admissions office very very recently and they've acknowledged that they went too far last year when they accepted 89% of all applicants.  Interestingly, what's caused them to re-evaluate their strategy isn't the significant pushback they received from alumni...... they fully expected and were prepared for that, but what caught them off guard was the substantial negative feedback they received from current students, many of whom have younger siblings or friends who will be high school seniors in the fall, and are questioning MU's extremely high acceptance rate.  They've also received a lot of negative feedback about this issue from high school guidance counselors across the board, but especially from the greater Chicagoland area who are telling them it's a turn off to many prospective students.

To me this is both troubling and re-assuring.  Troubling because they clearly don't care what we alums think, but re-assuring in the sense that they at least care what their prospective consumers think about it.  When folks are shelling out the kind of $$$ MU is asking them to to attend there, this issue matters whether MU officials want it to or not.  Unfortunately it's going to take 2 or 3 more admissions cycles to correct this, but at least they're trying to get to a place where all constituencies are happy, and they can do this in a way where they're not soliciting applications from students who are likely to be denied.  On the positive front, applications for Fall 2018 were up almost 25% this year, so that will help.

[forgetful]

I have tried to educate myself on this case over the weekend.  One name that continues to pop up is someone named Paul Quirk.  He graduated from MU in '71 and is a professor of Political Science at University of British Columbia.  He has responded to at least 5 MU Tribune articles and/or McAdams blog.

I suspect a friend of McAdams? 

https://marquettewire.org/3946597/tribune/viewpoints/editorials/editorial-announcement-to-suspend-mcadams-disappoints-and-shows-universitys-weakness/

"I congratulate the editors on the severe, fully warranted criticism of the University’s conduct. But the editorial misses the essential point: the Faculty Review Committee, contrary to the University’s hope, rejected dismissal as an appropriate punishment. It recognized that McAdams had a right to blog critically about Ms. Abbate. The University is attempting to override that recommendation, bringing dismissal back in through McAdams’ predictable refusal to apologize.

As a matter of the University’s contractual obligations to respect McAdam’s academic freedom, the committee’s judgment on this point is not a close call. And it is disappointing that the editors fail to recognize this fact. They call McAdams’ language “cruel” and “harsh,” without quoting any of it. In fact, he accused Abbate of using what he called a standard liberal tactic of shutting down debate. That’s as harsh as it got. He said nothing remotely unusual for journalistic or internet debate on a controversial academic-political issue. But leaving aside what he actually said, do the editors really want a university where debate is never “harsh,” and where an administrator’s or a committee’s finding of “harshness” in debate will result in punishment, even dismissal?

The result of the University’s decision will be another year or two of deservedly bad publicity as a lawsuit proceeds, followed by McAdams’ reinstatement with back pay, and I suspect, punitive damages. The University’s weakness has been in failing to recognize, and explain to McAdams’ critics, its obligation to protect academic freedom."

Paul Quirk MU A&S 1971
Professor of Political Science
Univerity of British Columbia

That's a bit weird.  The Faculty Committee found that "McAdams violated his core obligations as a tenured professor when he used his blog needlessly and recklessly to harm Abbate". 

They then recommended alternative punishments (including an apology) that McAdams refused to honor.  The only alternative at that point was to terminate.

Quirk's statements here misrepresent the facts.

[Blue Horseshoe]

That's a bit weird.  The Faculty Committee found that "McAdams violated his core obligations as a tenured professor when he used his blog needlessly and recklessly to harm Abbate". 

They then recommended alternative punishments (including an apology) that McAdams refused to honor.  The only alternative at that point was to terminate.

Quirk's statements here misrepresent the facts.

The Faculty Committee was a kangaroo court that consisted of faculty that had already publicly condemned McAdams before the committee had been formed. The committee did not seek an apology from McAdams, that demand came personally from President Lovell.

[Coleman]

This thread took an interesting turn.

I consider myself a "practicing" Catholic. I don't attend mass every week, but I attend more weeks than I don't (2-3 per month). I belong to a great parish in Chicago. I hate labels, but I would say it is pretty middle of the road. Very traditional liturgy, fantastic choir, but a priest who is not afraid to speak truth to power, especially vis a vis our current government. Homilies often focus on the plight of immigrants, poor, etc. I don't view this as liberal, it is just good, traditional, Catholic social teaching. We all know the Church's stance on abortion and homosexuality. We don't need to hear it every week.

My personal position is that my personal religious views should not be a basis for law in a secular society. The rule of law should govern the public square. Thus, while I am personally opposed to abortion, I recognize it as the law of the land. My views don't count more than others in this country. While I respect the right of the Catholic church to not conduct gay marriage ceremonies, it upsets me when those within the Church think that they should be able to dictate policy based on their own personal beliefs. Live and let live. Gay people are not harming anyone.

Back to McAdams: I disagree with how Abbate quashed legitimate discussion in her class. She deserved to be reprimanded. But within proper channels. Vigilante blog justice towards a graduate student was wrong. McAdams is not a victim. MU acted properly.

[forgetful]

The Faculty Committee was a kangaroo court that consisted of faculty that had already publicly condemned McAdams before the committee had been formed. The committee did not seek an apology from McAdams, that demand came personally from President Lovell.

The bolded is your opinion.  The follow up is factually incorrect.  I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams.  The decision by the committee was unanimous. 

The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate. 

That is the central argument of the case.  Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.

The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

The bolded is your opinion.  The follow up is factually incorrect.  I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams.  The decision by the committee was unanimous. 

The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate. 

That is the central argument of the case.  Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.

The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully.

What is the benefit to strip faculty of due process? The central argument is that McAdams has the protection of the 1st amendment which is not governed by a Faculty Committee.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

My wife and I are two.  Just need the one to oppose.

My wife and I attend weekly.

[Jockey]

What is the benefit to strip faculty of due process? The central argument is that McAdams has the protection of the 1st amendment which is not governed by a Faculty Committee.

This is not about the 1st amendment.

[Blue Horseshoe]

This is not about the 1st amendment.

Only in the sense that MU violated its contract agreement with McAdams and went as far as to break its own bylaws to terminate him.

[GGGG]

Only in the sense that MU violated its contract agreement with McAdams and went as far as to break its own bylaws to terminate him.

Well the contractural issue is why the court is hearing the case.  How did they break their own bylaws?

[muwarrior69]

The bolded is your opinion.  The follow up is factually incorrect.  I believe only 1 (and according to the in court questions/answers, it is also only 1), committee member had publicly spoke out about McAdams.  The decision by the committee was unanimous. 

The court records say unanimous that McAdams willfully violated his obligations as a tenured professor leading to intentional harm to Abbate. 

That is the central argument of the case.  Does the contractual agreement to have all matters decided by the Faculty Committee (who unanimously voted against McAdams), overrule the wording regarding free-speech in the contract.

The court would be wise to not make any decisions on this case, besides the above, and once the decision is rendered to send it back to a lower court to consider that matter fully.

How did he harm her?

[Blue Horseshoe]

Well the contractural issue is why the court is hearing the case.  How did they break their own bylaws?

When McAdams was initially suspended. MU Faculty Handbook Section 307.03, basically all of section 1 was violated. MU did not specify the statute allegedly violated, the date of the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, and any of the supposed facts of the violation. MU steamrolled McAdams right off of campus and then formed the faculty committee in an attempt to (falsely) legitimize its actions. 

http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php

In all cases of nonrenewal, suspension, or termination for absolute or discretionary cause, except Section 307.02(1) and (3), death, and permanent, total disability, the appropriate appointing authority of the University shall notify the faculty member in writing of the University's action. The notice shall include:

(1) The statute allegedly violated; the date of the alleged violation; the location of the alleged violation; a sufficiently detailed description of the facts constituting the violation including the names of the witnesses against the faculty member.

(2) The nature of the University’s contemplated action, with a specification of the date or dates upon which such action is to become effective with respect to faculty status, duties, salary, and benefit entitlements, respectively.

(3) Such notice shall be personally delivered and service shall operate from date of such delivery; if in the exercise of reasonable diligence it is not possible to personally serve the faculty member, it may be served by certified mail addressed to the faculty member’s last known place of residence, and service shall operate from date of mailing.

[GGGG]

When McAdams was initially suspended. MU Faculty Handbook Section 307.03, basically all of section 1 was violated. MU did not specify the statute allegedly violated, the date of the alleged violation, the location of the alleged violation, and any of the supposed facts of the violation. MU steamrolled McAdams right off of campus and then formed the faculty committee in an attempt to (falsely) legitimize its actions. 

http://www.marquette.edu/provost/307.php

In all cases of nonrenewal, suspension, or termination for absolute or discretionary cause, except Section 307.02(1) and (3), death, and permanent, total disability, the appropriate appointing authority of the University shall notify the faculty member in writing of the University's action. The notice shall include:

(1) The statute allegedly violated; the date of the alleged violation; the location of the alleged violation; a sufficiently detailed description of the facts constituting the violation including the names of the witnesses against the faculty member.

(2) The nature of the University’s contemplated action, with a specification of the date or dates upon which such action is to become effective with respect to faculty status, duties, salary, and benefit entitlements, respectively.

(3) Such notice shall be personally delivered and service shall operate from date of such delivery; if in the exercise of reasonable diligence it is not possible to personally serve the faculty member, it may be served by certified mail addressed to the faculty member’s last known place of residence, and service shall operate from date of mailing.

Those aren't Marquette's bylaws, which is a governance document.  It's the faculty rules.

And Marquette claims they didn't violate the faculty rules.  And your first paragraph is again full of opinion stated as fact.  Which is per usual.  So whatever...

[Blue Horseshoe]

Those aren't Marquette's bylaws, which is a governance document.  It's the faculty rules.

And Marquette claims they didn't violate the faculty rules.  And your first paragraph is again full of opinion stated as fact.  Which is per usual.  So whatever...

Bylaw: a rule made by a company or society to control the actions of its members.
Call me crazy but rules used to regulate, control (and in theory) protect its faculty members sure seem to fit the definition. The fact that the university did not follow those rules can be taken as you wish.

[jsglow]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.  Marquette threw an unrepentant repeat bully who had been warned numerous times off campus.  I would have slashed his tires too but that's just me.

Out.

[warriorchick]

Bylaw: a rule made by a company or society to control the actions of its members.
Call me crazy but rules used to regulate, control (and in theory) protect its faculty members sure seem to fit the definition. The fact that the university did not follow those rules can be taken as you wish.

Are you charging Professor McAdams for these posts? I am not sure it should be billable time.