WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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

Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.

[UWW2MU]

Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.

I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.

[muwarrior69]

Exactly. As soon as he mentioned Abate by name, he violated her privacy regarding a work matter in which she could face discipline.

What privacy right. A student came to McAdams after he went through all the channels to address the situation that was not resolved from his perspective. McAdams just reported his story: who, what, where, when and when writing an opinion piece why.

[muwarrior69]

I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.

She was the instructor of record.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

Gotcha. For some reason I thought that it wasn't because at phonation we had a beep to indicate a recording

[Lennys Tap]

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.

Seriously???? In some countries they tell people (homosexuals and wives, eg.) quite unambiguously what the rules are and what the punishments are if you break them. I'm sure they're grateful for your respect.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I don't even think it's a "work matter" per se and is actually the equivalent of him outing a student by name.

Yes, Marquette puts the student part first when it comes to student-teachers.

To me, it feels like both "outing a student by name" and a "work issue."

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

What privacy right. A student came to McAdams after he went through all the channels to address the situation that was not resolved from his perspective. McAdams just reported his story: who, what, where, when and when writing an opinion piece why.

So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?

[UWW2MU]

She was the instructor of record.

Yes, but TAs are students first and foremost. 

[muwarrior69]

So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?

Because the student is a student and not an instructor of record.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Because the student is a student and not an instructor of record.

Yes, but TAs are students first and foremost. 

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, Marquette puts the student part first when it comes to student-teachers.

Yes, and Kentucky puts the student part first when it comes to student-athletes.

[Jockey]

So why is the complaining student unnamed, yet Abate is named?

We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.

Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.

[forgetful]

Gotcha. For some reason I thought that it wasn't because at phonation we had a beep to indicate a recording

It is a bit more complicated though.  At least in the Law school (at Marquette), it is against University policy to record a lecture without the explicit permission of the instructor. 

So, although it may not have violated state laws, it could be viewed as violating university policies. 

Honestly not sure if the rules in the law school also apply to regular classes, or if an equivalent exists in regular MU classes. 

Also, because copyrighted material is often covered in class, and proprietary ideas are discussed, the instructors are all allowed to disallow any recordings.  My guess is Abate did not officially ban such recordings in her syllabus, I know other faculty that do.

[rocket surgeon]

We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.

Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.

abrasive much?  no 69 isn't playing dumb.  he is simply disagreeing

  "based on what we all know...really?    "a simple case of planned intimidation"?   

       and there you have it-all these pages of blah blah blah and we could've just cut to the chase?

[GGGG]

abrasive much?  no 69 isn't playing dumb.  he is simply disagreeing

And we all know why he is disagreeing. And why you're stepping in too.

[rocket surgeon]

And we all know why he is disagreeing. And why you're stepping in too.

Simple, Eyn'a?   

[muwarrior69]

We both know why and so does MU69, even if he does want to play dumb.

Based on what we all know happens over and over, ad nauseum, Abate would be humiliated and threatened nationally if she was named. That was McAdams goal all along. Otherwise, he would have named all parties involved or none of them. A simple case of planned intimidation.

[/color]

Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".

[GGGG]

[/color]

Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".

Good lord. He was given the option to drop the class. It wasn't a threat.

[GGGG]

BTW as I have said all along Abatte didn't handle this well either. She was way too dismissive of the student's initial complaint.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

[/color]

Just like Abate and her department did to the real student, "drop the class".

I see you're deflecting.  For the record, Abate made a poor assumption in class saying everyone agrees about gay marriage. She compounded that mistake with a weak defense, saying students could be offended.  A debate could easily be held with some simple ground rules. An experienced professor shouldn't make these mistakes.  That is why student-teachers are students first and foremost.  They have to learn from these mistakes, even though they are the "instructor of record."

The university likely made mistakes in their interactions with the unnamed student. But neither their mistakes nor Abate's excuse McAdams's actions.  We have to look at them in isolation.

[WarriorDad]

Seriously???? In some countries they tell people (homosexuals and wives, eg.) quite unambiguously what the rules are and what the punishments are if you break them. I'm sure they're grateful for your respect.

That's quite the false equivalency.  The nuns I had kept it a bit more simple.  Show up on time, don't talk in class, stand for the pledge, bow your heads for prayer, skirts a certain height, don't talk in class until called upon, and a few other rules.  They laid them out, asked if we understood them.  Your analogy is off base.  I don't find any parallel with what nuns did as religious teachers and the authority they had in the classroom to what some authoritarian regimes in some parts of the world do when they kill people for certain behaviors.

Maybe nuns are the gateway drug to brutal dictators in backward societies?   

[Lennys Tap]

That's quite the false equivalency.  The nuns I had kept it a bit more simple.  Show up on time, don't talk in class, stand for the pledge, bow your heads for prayer, skirts a certain height, don't talk in class until called upon, and a few other rules.  They laid them out, asked if we understood them.  Your analogy is off base.  I don't find any parallel with what nuns did as religious teachers and the authority they had in the classroom to what some authoritarian regimes in some parts of the world do when they kill people for certain behaviors.

Maybe nuns are the gateway drug to brutal dictators in backward societies?   

You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.

[WarriorDad]

You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.

I am ok with parents spanking their kids, it was how I was raised, but it has to be done properly and with compassion.  For the same reason I issued probably no more than 2 spankings to each of my kids in their lives. And when I did, we had a long talk before I did it, and a long talk after I did it.  It was not a first resort, but a last resort.

I did not say nuns can just haul off and hit children with reckless abandon.  The nuns rarely hit anyone, that was the point. Corporal punishment was never doled out for a kid having a shirt untucked.  You were told to tuck it in.  You received demerits.  After school punishment.  Clean up trash during recess.  Come in on the weekend for work.  If corporal punishment ultimately happened, it was because of a bevy of things that led up to it, at least in my experience. Not first resort, but the fact it was in the back of your mind worked for some, not all.

Fear is a great motivator.  Whether it is a whack on the hand, go to bed without dinner, can't to Johnny's house for a sleepover, don't pay your taxes you go to jail, if you speed you receive a hefty fine.  This has been part of the reward, punishment of humanity since civilization.

I believe in positive reinforcement first, but studies have shown though that is the preferred way it isn't the only effective way and doesn't work for everyone.  Some kids do need some corporal punishment.  Must be careful in how it is administered.

[Jockey]

You said you were OK with nuns hitting children. Actually more than OK, you celebrated their behavior because it lacked ambiguity about how to treat rule breakers. I disagree because I don't think having your shirt untucked merits corporal punishment for 6 year old no matter how unambiguous the rule is.

I guess we know what happened to 6 year old Lennie