WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Coleman]

I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult.  I'm a conservative.  Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady.  I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being.  I would tell that to her face.  But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure.  In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation.  But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.

My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained.  If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground.  And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action. 

I applaud the university however this turns out.  If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it.  But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.

Amen glow! With you 100%

[Coleman]

I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.

I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.

[jsglow]

I 100% agree with your conclusion.  (Correction however...Abate wasn't a Professor.)

Technically instructor.  Thanks for the correction.

[jsglow]

I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.

I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.

I've mentioned this before Coleman.  40 years ago John was a mentor of mine.  Not sure what's happened over the decades but he's not the same guy I once knew well.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I am not an MU homer (except for basketball of course) by any stretch of the imagination, and I will not defend this university blindly. The university administration has botched and effed up many things from a PR perspective over the past 30 or so years. But, simply put, this is not one of those times.

I think part of the problem is that McAdams developed a cult following (literally) from conservative students at MU for (perhaps admirably at times) sticking up to the administration and being one of very few vocally conservative voices on campus. These students have since turned into alumni, but continue to follow the Pied Piper. But that loyalty to McAdams blinds them from how completely inappropriate his actions were and how justified the university was in his dismissal.

The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway.  The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.     

[mu_hilltopper]

(Question .. did they fire McAdams?   I thought the committee said he was suspended until he apologizes, promises to not do it again, etc, and McAdams has refused that conclusion.)

[jsglow]

(Question .. did they fire McAdams?   I thought the committee said he was suspended until he apologizes, promises to not do it again, etc, and McAdams has refused that conclusion.)

Think he's on permanent unpaid suspension.  Think, not sure.

[muwarrior69]

I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult.  I'm a conservative.  Just yesterday, Randa Jarrar at Fresno State tweeted the most reprehensible thing I can possibly imagine about the deceased First Lady.  I disagree with it vehemently and think she is an awful human being.  I would tell that to her face.  But what she tweeted was about a public figure and if she wants to make an a-hole of herself, I suppose she has that right and is somehow protected from retribution from Fresno State through her tenure.  In contrast, I generally agree with Dr. McAdams views on matters and think that Professor Abate completely mishandled the situation.  But I also think that he had zero right to go outside proper protocol and unilaterally choose the route of 'vigilante justice', a position echoed unanimously by the faculty review process by noting that his employment contract specifically precludes ridicule, etc.

My own daughter isn't that far away from the academic/teaching level Ms. Abate had attained.  If some professor was publicly critical and demeaning of her performance in an analogous way, I'd personally burn his/her arse to the ground.  And I'd be in Mike's office 5 minutes later without notice demanding action. 

I applaud the university however this turns out.  If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it.  But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.

I thought he said he would not quit and would return to teaching at MU if he won. I may be wrong on that.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I'm not sure why this has been so very difficult.  I'm a conservative. ...
I applaud the university however this turns out.  If they end up having to write a check because of some technicality in some contract, so be it.  But they better never let that a-clown set foot on campus again.

You might be conservative, glow, but you are rational.  We could use more of that.  Tip of the hat.

[Eldon]

The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway.  The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.   

I disagree about the final result being "bad PR." 

On the contrary, I would argue that MU made a calculated decision to take this to court (knowing that they would lose) for good PR.  MU will come out of this as having 'stood up to a bully'. 

"We stood up to a bully" probably sits better with more alums and future students than "we place a high value on academic tenure."

[Blue Horseshoe]

The fact is that the Supreme Court would be WAY overstepping its bounds by ruling in favor of McAdams and have already done so by accepting the case on direct appeal.  This is a private employment agreement that should no way be judged on any free speech grounds.

Except for the fact that MU is contractually obligated (allegedly, on its own account) to uphold the same rights extended to McAdam by the 1st amendment. So you're making my case that MU should uphold it's end of the contract agreement. Or, alter the contract to exclude employees the same rights. Just put it on paper and sign it one way or the other.

[Babybluejeans]

I disagree about the final result being "bad PR." 

On the contrary, I would argue that MU made a calculated decision to take this to court (knowing that they would lose) for good PR.  MU will come out of this as having 'stood up to a bully'. 

"We stood up to a bully" probably sits better with more alums and future students than "we place a high value on academic tenure."

I agree. It's important to note the sources of nearly all the "bad PR." Those aren't sources most alumni - and certainly not reasonable ones - give a crap about.

[Eldon]

I agree. It's important to note the sources of nearly all the "bad PR." Those aren't sources most alumni - and certainly not reasonable ones - give a crap about.

I'm an alum.  I consider myself reasonable.  I give a crap about the WSJ and the AAUP.  I value tenure (and fulfilling contractual duties generally) very highly.  But I realize that I am in the minority.

[GGGG]

Except for the fact that MU is contractually obligated (allegedly, on its own account) to uphold the same rights extended to McAdam by the 1st amendment.

Within boundaries that are outlined within its faculty rules which McAdams agreed to.

[Blue Horseshoe]

The problem actually is that the university never had a strong legal basis to fire McAdams under the terms of his contract (regardless whether one thinks his blog post was appropriate or not), but did so anyway.  The administration may still believe that they did the right thing, but they've paid a lot in legal fees and bad PR to take that position, and now they're about to eat a big sh*t burger from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Maybe Lovell thought this was a hill worth dying on, but the end result was always pretty clear.   

Pick a better hill, would'ya?!?

[rocket surgeon]

  just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school.  today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP.  these incidents can have a  "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate. 

   i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well.  i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president.  i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell.   many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html

[muwarrior69]

I'm an alum.  I consider myself reasonable.  I give a crap about the WSJ and the AAUP.  I value tenure (and fulfilling contractual duties generally) very highly.  But I realize that I am in the minority.

+1! To those at MU he is an ass hole, bully, a royal pain in the ass; but he has a right to be all those things. For us in the minority he is a voice the University wants to censor.

[jsglow]

  just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school.  today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP.  these incidents can have a  "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate. 

   i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well.  i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president.  i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell.   many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html

Interesting.  I see it very much the opposite, especially on the former.  You do remember Pilarz, yes?  The reality is that there may have only been 10 qualified Jesuits to choose from whereas there were hundreds of qualified and 'fully Catholic' lay candidates, Mike among them.

Look, I have several MU policy differences with Lovell.  I'm certainly not going to enumerate them here on scoop.  But I generally think he has a constructive vision for the university here in the 21st century and I especially applaud him for what is a far more aggressive agenda.  Honestly, I'd selfishly hate to work for him because I'd be sure to burn out quickly.  But from a constituent standpoint, that's great.  MU is run more like a business today focused on 'creating shareholder value' than at any point in my memory if that sense.

[muwarrior69]

  just an FYI-not saying this incident is at the same level as the missouri protests of 2015, but not many outside of the community are fully aware of the ramifications that episode had on the school.  today we are hearing about a fresno state college "professor" spouting off her opinions on the late barbara bush-RIP.  these incidents can have a  "boil the frog" like consequences that may take longer to re mediate. 

   i do not wish this type of result with my alma mater, however, i do hope MU learns from not only this incident, but others as well.  i am somewhat uncomfortable with MU's decision to go outside the traditions of having a jesuit as president.  i am even more uncomfortable with what i have seen so far with michael lovell.   many here want to minimize this mccadams case, and that may be your hopes that this does just go away, but as this ny times article informs us, "long afterwards...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html

Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?

[jsglow]

+1! To those at MU he is an ass hole, bully, a royal pain in the ass; but he has a right to be all those things. For us in the minority he is a voice the University wants to censor.

Therein lies the argument.  Many, myself included, would say, 'No, he does not.'

[jsglow]

Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?

You raise an interesting point.  Many have argued that MU has strayed far away from Catholic underpinnings, probably similar to other Jesuit institutions.  I don't subscribe to that view and prefer the more 'open door' policy MU has embraced but it does result in an interesting discussion.

[muwarrior69]

You raise an interesting point.  Many have argued that MU has strayed far away from Catholic underpinnings, probably similar to other Jesuit institutions.  I don't subscribe to that view and prefer the more 'open door' policy MU has embraced but it does result in an interesting discussion.

Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.

I love MU, but it pains me that this is where we are.

[GGGG]

Why would you send your child who you raised Catholic to a school that will not allow traditional marriage to be discussed in a class room that claims to be Catholic?

Huh. Where does that happen?

[jsglow]

Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.

Nope.  They're down because MU wants them down.  And enrollment is up considerably btw.  As to the rest of your point, we each are entitled to our opinion.  Culturally MU isn't much different than it was 30 years ago except that it's far more 'Naperville' (meaning affluent).

[GGGG]

Perhaps that is why applications to MU are down. I went on the MU website and on their diversity page the LGBTQ link is prominently displayed. I also linked to the Fordham site on diversity and no link to the LGBTQ community. I think it is one thing to respect individuals for who they are, but when a "Catholic" University actively supports the LGTBQ community whose values are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values I as a Catholic will have second thoughts about sending my child there.

OH NO!!! NOT THE GAYS!!!  THEY WILL PROBABALY TRY TO RECRUIT MY POOR LITTLE CHILD TO THEIR SIDE!!!