WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter

Biased political lens.

[Lighthouse 84]

More reading material: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/#.WnHJuRvr39w.twitter

If someone wants to bash the writer because she went to ND law school and teaches at ND's business school, you'd be justified, because we all know ND blows.  On the other hand, it's a very well written article.

[reinko]

Interesting. Please explain the relationship of political correctness and the liberal agenda with your views on your admitted propensity for having intentionally unprotected sex with drunk girls.

Just want to make sure to bump this.

[GGGG]

If someone wants to bash the writer because she went to ND law school and teaches at ND's business school, you'd be justified, because we all know ND blows.  On the other hand, it's a very well written article.

Outside of the fact that it is missing key facts...for instance that McAdams had been reprimanded in the past for similar actions.

Look, it's obvious how the WI Supremes are going to rule.  And people will hypocritically be happy.  But of course it won't be the first time those who are cheering are hypocrites - the last 18 months have been proof of that.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The fact that you read a publication that defended Roy Moore's dating of teens is all I need to know about you

No, it actually does not.  And I found the article on Twitter anyway. 

[Galway Eagle]

No, it actually does not.  And I found the article on Twitter anyway.

In which case I would advise you vet your sources better. There's a reason I don't post things from places like Rawstory or Huffpost anymore.

[rocky_warrior]

Look, it's obvious how the WI Supremes are going to rule. 

Wait - it's obvious?  I mean this sincerely, I'm not connected to WI in any way other than Marquette.  Why is it obvious?

[GGGG]

Wait - it's obvious?  I mean this sincerely, I'm not connected to WI in any way other than Marquette.  Why is it obvious?

Because I don't think the Supremes would have taken the case directly (bypassing the Court of Appeals) had they not wanted to rule on this directly.

[Pakuni]

Remember that in my example everything would be turned on its head. The WSJ, Fox News, the evil conservative Wisconsin Supremes and Rush Limbaugh would be supporting Marquette's right (dare I say duty?) to fire the liberal icon. The NYT, WaPo, "reasoned" liberal Wisconsin circuit court judges, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell would be outraged by Marquette's assault on a tenured professor's first amendment rights.

Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.

I guess I'm confused by the point you're trying very hard to make.
Has anyone here penned "scores of posts" championing the left's version of Fox News and Limbaugh (MSNBC and Maddow, perhaps)? Has anyone called the Wisconsin Supreme Court evil?* I mean, there are so many straw men in your hypothetical you could put on a Broadway revival of 'The Wiz.'

To answer your question, I'd support the dismissal of any college professor who intentionally exposes a student to public scorn and harassment after having been previously warned that such behavior was not acceptable.

To be clear, I knew nothing of McAdams or his politics before this whole kerfuffle began. I'd never read his blog. Never had a class with him. Actually never heard of him beyond that I knew he was pro-Warrior mascot guy. But that's hardly (as far as I can tell) an issue that falls solely along the lines of conservative vs liberal political ideology.

* = The irony here are that the ones insulting the Wisconsin Supreme Court are by and large those who side with McAdams. Their thrust seems to be that with a majority of politically conservative justices, the court will rule in McAdams' favor, not on the basis of legal merits, but on ideology. I'd like to think better of the court. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.

[Lennys Tap]

You can try to paint me into a political corner, but you are failing miserably.

I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Do I believe that under those circumstances Sultan, Pakuni, TSmith, etc. would pen scores of posts championing Fox News, Limbaugh and the Wisconsin Supremes while excoriating their opponents? Not a chance. They would just switch jerseys, making Guerrero's argument their own. He would do likewise. Politics informs our principles.

You are absolutely wrong.  "Both sides do it", "both sides are the same" is simply incorrect, a cop out, and justification for the bad, tribal behavior of one side. 

A professor, whether liberal, conservative, or politically agnostic attacking and IDing a student on a public blog, after being repeatedly warned about such behavior?  Gone.

Sorry, that is the difference between the two sides.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.

[Lennys Tap]

* = The irony here are that the ones insulting the Wisconsin Supreme Court are by and large those who side with McAdams. Their thrust seems to be that with a majority of politically conservative justices, the court will rule in McAdams' favor, not on the basis of legal merits, but on ideology. I'd like to think better of the court. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.

So if they agree with you, they're good judges acting on the merits of the case and if they disagree they're hacks. Funny stuff.

[GGGG]

I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.

I have defended Marquette when it fired people on "the other side."  That trumps whatever hypothetical point you are trying to make.  So you can take your "self awareness" argument and shove it up your behind.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

#FreeMcAdams

Those who agree are in the RIGHT.

My alma mater messed up. The courts shall say it is so.

Rah rah team!
#sad

[Pakuni]

So if they agree with you, they're good judges acting on the merits of the case and if they disagree they're hacks. Funny stuff.

Yeah, that's nothing close to what I wrote.
Well done.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yeah, that's nothing close to what I wrote.
Well done.

Sure, but is a lot easier to win an argument if you can first create an easily destroyed strawman.

[Lennys Tap]

You are absolutely wrong.  "Both sides do it", "both sides are the same" is simply incorrect, a cop out, and justification for the bad, tribal behavior of one side. 

A professor, whether liberal, conservative, or politically agnostic attacking and IDing a student on a public blog, after being repeatedly warned about such behavior?  Gone.

Sorry, that is the difference between the two sides.

Sorry, T, but that's what YOU want this ALL to be about. Others see it being about MULTIPLE things that may be in conflict with one another. I think the other side readily acknowledges that what you think this is all about is part of what it's about but not all. That's why it's in the courts.

[forgetful]

I don't have to "paint you into a political corner". You do it yourself (many times) nearly every day here. I'm not even saying there's anything necessarily wrong with being in a political corner - but only if it comes with some self awareness. Bogus claims to some non existent moral high ground and along the way demanding to define what this controversy is or isn't about is all about one political side trying to demean another.

So you posed a hypothetical, you didn't like that it didn't work out as you hoped, so now essentially you are calling all of us liars.  Not the strongest argument.

Especially given that most of us that support the MU firing, believe that the student (Abate) did not handle the situation properly, believe that her supervisors did not handle reprimanding/correcting her properly on how to operate her class, believe that the faculty handling the student (JD) mishandled the situation.  All that is just background from the fact at hand.

McAdams named and attacked a student (Abate) in an online forum, knowing that there was a strong chance that the student (Abate) would be harassed by his blog followers.  That is a violation of his responsibilities as a professor, for which he had been reprimanded and warned in the past.  In my opinion, it is also a violation of FERPA, which protects students from the unauthorized release of personal information.

Had he simply posted the same blog without naming Abate, there would be no issue here.  He cannot claim that he should not have been aware of the harm this would cause the student (Abate), because he intentionally left out the undergraduates name to protect him.  That means he was aware that the blog posting could bring harm to the people involved.  He chose to put Abate at risk for harm, and not the other student.

What your pretty terrible article forgets to mention, is that his contract also states that revocation of tenure decisions will be decided by a panel of MU faculty, whose recommendation will be sent to the president of the University.  No one forced him to enter into a contract accepting this method of review in tenure revocation decisions. It is the MU faculty panel that decides what is a "legitimate" expression of personal or academic freedom.

[Lighthouse 84]

This might be the most unintentionally hilarious part of your post, given that the professor attacked the student for what she thought.

I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think.  The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.

[GGGG]

I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think.  The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.

I don't think that is what she did though.  She didn't think his example was a good one.

Regardless, she handled it wrong as well.  That doesn't excuse McAdams' actions though.

[forgetful]

I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think.  The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.

First, I'm on the record saying Abbate did not handle this properly. But...

I'm not sure she told him "what to think."  She really told him two things. 

1.  He should consider how students would feel if they were told they were not allowed the same rights as another person, simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or sex.  That they would likely be hurt/offended.  That is teaching him "how" to think, not "what" to think.

2.  That racist/bigoted/hateful speech will not be allowed in her classroom.    Again, that is not teaching him "what" to think.  It is just establishing rules for the classroom that are consistent with established MU rules.

Where she clearly errors is in shutting down his discussion on the topic.  That is an error of an inexperienced instructor, which is why as graduate students, as part of their curriculum, they are forced to teach so that they can obtain feedback and instruction on that aspect of their career.  I don't think this error though tells him "what" to think.

[Pakuni]

I think he meant that the Jesuit system should teach how to think, not what to think.  The irony is that the whole issue was borne out of Abbate telling the student what to think.

Did she? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the issue was what she believed ought to be discussed in the classroom, not what his personal views were. She was wrong either way, but there's a difference nonetheless.
(I double-checked. I'm not mistaken.)

Regardless, McAdams wasn't fired for what he thought. As has been said repeatedly, he could have written nearly the exact same blog post omitting Abbate's name, gotten his point across just as effectively, and nothing would have come of it.
The fact he chose not only to include her name, but hyperlinked to her contact information, indicates a level of vindictiveness and wilful flaunting of the administration's previous admonitions to him. That's why he's out of work, not because of what he thought.

[Lennys Tap]

I have defended Marquette when it fired people on "the other side."  That trumps whatever hypothetical point you are trying to make.  So you can take your "self awareness" argument and shove it up your behind.

LOL. You tepidly and briefly acknowledged that MU had the right to fire a teacher who had her students paint a mural on an MU building to honor a convicted cop murderer. My guess is that Guerrero and his side wouldn't have much of a problem with MU firing a teacher who had his student paint a mural on campus to honor David Duke. Comparing either to the McAdams case would be silly.

Regarding shoving self awareness up one's rectum, since you still can't locate yours I suggest that might be a good place to look.

[Pakuni]

LOL. You tepidly and briefly acknowledged that MU had the right to fire a teacher who had her students paint a mural on an MU building to honor a convicted cop murderer. My guess is that Guerrero and his side wouldn't have much of a problem with MU firing a teacher who had his student paint a mural on campus to honor David Duke. Comparing either to the McAdams case would be silly.

And here's where those defending McAdams on the basis of academic freedom are exposed as frauds.
They admittedly have no problem with the university firing certain faculty members for certain expressions, academic freedom be darned. They just take issue when that fired faculty member is simpatico to their political ideologies.