WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Blue Horseshoe]

Let's get this thread back on track. Arguments were heard by the court last Thursday. Does anything happen between now and when the court issues a ruling sometime in the early summer?

[GGGG]

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.

According to McAdams they didn't follow the faculty rules. According to Marquette they did.

Oh and here are Marquette's actual bylaws.

http://www.marquette.edu/ogc/policies/documents/PagesfromCertifiedArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws2013.pdf

Are you going to counter this with a dictionary definition as well? 

[GGGG]

Let's get this thread back on track. Arguments were heard by the court last Thursday. Does anything happen between now and when the court issues a ruling sometime in the early summer?

The thread was never off track.

[Blue Horseshoe]

The thread was never off track.

So you don't know... Anybody else?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Nothing is likely to happen publicly between now and a written opinion in June, except the two sides doing more PR spin.

[forgetful]

How did he harm her?

Not my job to determine that.  According to the contract that McAdams agreed to, the governing body to make such decisions was the Faculty Committee.  They came to that conclusion, not me. 

And since contractually, both parties agreed to such a committee making the decision, then it should be binding.

As I noted before, the court is trying to determine whether the Free Speech section of the contract supersedes the contractual agreement to let the Faculty Committee make the decision. 

[WarriorDad]

"Respect" isn't derived from a uniform or the possibility that the person wearing it might hit you. You're confusing respect with fear.

I was raised to respect the uniform.  It's a military thing I guess, or maybe law enforcement roots. Didn't matter, police, fire, military, nun, milkman, UPS guy, service station gasser.  That was my upbringing.  That doesn't mean you respect the person, but the uniform you do.  The person has to earn the respect. 

Respect can be derived from a uniform, but is earned by the person usually.  I believe what I said was they were instantly recognizable and the nuns I had demanded respect.  In a separate sentence I spoke of the punishment they doled out, but that isn't why I feared them.  They told you what the rules were, if you didn't follow them there was a punishment. I respected that because there was no ambiguity.

[Galway Eagle]

I was raised to respect the uniform.  It's a military thing I guess, or maybe law enforcement roots. Didn't matter, police, fire, military, nun, milkman, UPS guy, service station gasser.  That was my upbringing.  That doesn't mean you respect the person, but the uniform you do.  The person has to earn the respect. 

Respect can be derived from a uniform, but is earned by the person usually.  I believe what I said was they were instantly recognizable and the nuns I had demanded respect.  In a separate sentence I spoke of the punishment they doled out, but that isn't why I feared them.  They told you what the rules were, if you didn't follow them there was a punishment. I respected that because there was no ambiguity.

Studies show positive reinforcement is actually more effective than negative reinforcement.

[UWW2MU]

Not my job to determine that.  According to the contract that McAdams agreed to, the governing body to make such decisions was the Faculty Committee.  They came to that conclusion, not me. 

And since contractually, both parties agreed to such a committee making the decision, then it should be binding.

As I noted before, the court is trying to determine whether the Free Speech section of the contract supersedes the contractual agreement to let the Faculty Committee make the decision.

Is it focusing on the faculty committee portion or is it focusing on the section that determines how faculty address issues of student faculty?    While I don't know the wording, I know the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc.   In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly.   That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public.   The rest of it regarding his enabling of harrassment and whatnot is just additional layers to the issue.

[muwarrior69]

Is it focusing on the faculty committee portion or is it focusing on the section that determines how faculty address issues of student faculty?    While I don't know the wording, I know the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc.   In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly.   That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public.   The rest of it regarding his enabling of harrassment and whatnot is just additional layers to the issue.

I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.

[GGGG]

I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.

Which was not proper procedure according to Marquette.  If he has a problem with the way a graduate student teaches a class, he should have gone to her advisor. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

Which was not proper procedure according to Marquette.  If he has a problem with the way a graduate student teaches a class, he should have gone to her advisor.

Because why?

[rocky_warrior]

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.

the contract has specific processes on how to deal with student faculty who handle things poorly, break a rule, etc.   In that, it specifically states that they are to address it with that TA and not to handle it publicly.   That is the core of the rule that McAdams broke by going public.   

Because why?

For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!

[Blue Horseshoe]

For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!

Because that is not proper procedure dicated by MUScoop?

[GGGG]

Because why?

Because that is what faculty are supposed to do with regard to graduate students.  It is alluded to in the faculty report.

[GGGG]

For a guy so quick to cite "bylaws", that was a head spinning about-face!

And to cite it incorrectly at that.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I am not sure I follow. McAdams was not Abate's advisor nor was Abate's student MacAdams' student so he was not involved in any student/faculty process. He just wrote an opinion piece of the students account of what happened to him in and out of Abate's class in his blog.

So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.

[GGGG]

So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.

Using recordings obtained without the knowledge of the instructor as well.

[Galway Eagle]

Using recordings obtained without the knowledge of the instructor as well.

I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.

[muwarrior69]

So professors not directly involved have free reign to air discipline matters in public and identify names of those involved? That is the type of dangerous precedent Marquette is fighting against.

He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.

[Galway Eagle]

He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.

My understanding is that if he hadn't named said TA he would've been fine

[GGGG]

He wasn't airing a discipline matter. He was airing the right of a student to openly discuss a topic in class which the TA said was offensive. If a Professor can't write about that in a blog then it is nothing more than censorship.

The student has no such right.  And McAdams had every right to blog about it without using the instructor's name.

No one is being censored.

[Pakuni]

I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.

I believe Wisconsin is a "one-party consent" state, wherein only one person in a recorded conversation needs to consent to it in order for it to be lawful.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. The undergrad student should realistically be facing some legal trouble.

Was the student a participant in the conversation, or was he recording someone else's conversation? It's legal to record a conversation if you're a participant (in Wisconsin...and most states).

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I believe Wisconsin is a "one-party consent" state, wherein only one person in a recorded conversation needs to consent to it in order for it to be lawful.

Correct.