WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[GGGG]

Did the Fresno State professor ever cyber-bully multiple students?  Was she warned about this abusive behavior and ignored it anyway?

The answers are "no" and "no."  The fact is the court used a academic freedom as a cover for their political decision. And of course conservatives are gushing over it. Given the knots they've been tying themselves into over the last couple years, it's not surprising.

[rocket surgeon]

I think this whole case is a yawn-fest. Literally no one cares outside of a segment of MU folks, and some right wing A.M. radio-type folks.

I'll simply say this: anyone who thinks the Court isn't partisan has their head buried deeply in the Bradford Beach sand. Unlike the entire federal judiciary and most states, Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected. Elections, by their nature, are partisan. Not only that, WI's judicial elections have been especially partisan. See, e.g., https://www.wiscontext.org/votes-2018-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-were-most-partisan-two-decades.

So if you think a partisan process doesn't produce a partisan result, the idiot in the room is you.

  first off, your first sentence is very short sighted-academia across the board was paying attention.  this has ramifications further than you would like to acknowledge

the article you try to use to make your point merely uses as it's premise that the ELECTIONS were the most partisan...as noted in many previous elections and even appointments for that matter, they do not always guarantee the desired result or outcome.

  your conclusion is faulty.   refer to president reagan's appointment of justice sandra day o'conner and president h.w.'s appointment of justice samuel souter.  in other words, ya can't always get what ya want.  many people disagreed with justice roberts majority opinion on healthcare for example.  he was supposed to be this "ultra-conservative" appointee.  on the flip side, justice elena kagan joined the conservatives on the cakeshop ruling.

  whether it's by appointment or election, the justices are chosen with regard to how they have adjudicated in the past, not necessarily their political persuasion.  their adjudication isn't merely political as much as it is how they interpret the law.  that should not be a political ideology even though the 2 main ways law has been applied seems to be indicative of a party affiliation.  the way the rule of law is applied should be apolitical and unbiased.  i guess it depends on which side agrees with the ruling.     

[Babybluejeans]

That this has become just another Chicos and Rocket right-wing masturbation forum says everything about the quality of this thread.

Probably time to shut 'er down.

[muwarrior69]

Strongly disagree.  He agreed to a contract that stipulated that disciplinary actions would follow a protocol that was followed.  He disagreed with the decision.  He took it to the courts, which he is entitle to do.  The courts initial decisions were mostly correct, but incomplete.  The correct action for the Supreme Court here would have been to send it back to the lower court...they did not.  They made this a political decision, that is embarrassing on multiple levels.

One of the richest examples of political bias affecting court decisions can be found in the determination that the MU decision to fire McAdams demonstrated extreme bias, because a professor on the committee had spoken critically of McAdams and his blog in the past.  Indicating that failure to recuse themselves demonstrated extreme bias.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Bradley, who felt that she was under attack while at MU for her writings about homosexuals being degenerates, and who is an outspoken critic of campus culture (particularly suppression of conservatives in her view), does not recuse herself in a case involving MU, homosexual-rights, and campus culture and suppression of conservative views...hmm pot calling the kettle black a bit.  Instead writes a concurring opinion championing this decision to stop campuses from "succumb[ing] to the dominant academic culture of microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces that seeks to silence unpopular speech by deceptively recasting it as violence?"...purely political words...not legal.

If an MU professor should recuse themselves for having a prior opinion about McAdams' blog, than Bradley most certainly should have.  Anything less is holding MU's faculty committee to a higher standard than the court. 

Other clear aspects of judicial activisim:  A key element of the case involved whether McAdam's actions demonstrated him unfit to function as a professor. 

His actions against a student in this case clearly violates any moral, ethical, and professional requirements of a professor.  In particular his refusal to apologize (if he had he would have been reinstated), demonstrates him unfit.

The court, with no legal guidance, and no legal precedent, over-ruled the decision of the faculty council, a governing body in existence to for the sole purpose of making such a difficult decision.  It is not taken lightly at all, and is a difficult process, which is why they recommended sanction and formal apology.  Here the court decided they know better what the obligations and expectations of a professor are.  Such an action is activism, not law. 

That is not what the court saw at all.  They decided that even if viewed as a student, there was no cause for termination.  They decided that a professor can: 1) Call a student out by name in a public blog. 2) Criticize or publicly disgrace the student, regardless of whether it can be reasonably assumed that such criticism or disgrace may bring threats or harm. 3) Provide contact information for said student. and 4) Do so without verifying that the information is accurate or correct. 

All in the name of academic freedom.

That is actually stipulated in their formal decision.  So ask yourself if you are ok with professors being able to perform all of 1-4 in regard to your own child?  Also ask yourself if such a decision is consistent with the rule of law in this nation. 

Not in regards to McAdams or this case, but a fundamental rule of law.  Those of you championing this decision are saying that is correct, lawful and what you would want to apply to your own kid.

This "student" "child" had her own public blog which Mcadams linked to. My child would have stood her ground and given it right back at him. He would have learned you don't mess with my daughter. In fact she would have welcomed the debate.

[mu_hilltopper]

McAdams was never fired, yet half the headlines out there proclaim it.

http://marquette.edu/leadership/documents/20160324-Marquette-Lovell-to-McAdams.pdf

Lovell accepted the 123 page report that recommended two semester suspension and a letter of remorse prior to his reinstatement.

Instead of apologizing and being reinstated, McAdams went to court. 

I also find it interesting that McAdams was involved in 6 previous MU controversies  which MU didn't reprimand him for.

While (some) educators are happy with this result, that "tenure" was upheld .. I would think administrations across the spectrum will ratchet up the filters for tenure.

[dgies9156]

While (some) educators are happy with this result, that "tenure" was upheld .. I would think administrations across the spectrum will ratchet up the filters for tenure.

Most sane comment yet on the whole matter. The McAdams case was a contract law case that, at its core, raised the question of what was meant by academic freedom. The natural outcome of this will be a legal field day in which anal attorneys spend millions of terabytes of data defining what is and isn't academic freedom.

Most of us outside academia never could imagine this happening. We're hired at will. We know better than to openly criticize our employers or to use the internet to criticize our colleagues or leadership. No matter how strongly we fee about something, we know there are limits to how we can criticize. That's why I find tenure so amazing  -- you can do almost anything and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.

The value of tenure was underscored years ago in the Dan Maguire case. Then Father Maguire left the Jesuit order and took reproductive positions at issue with teachings of the Catholic Church. Marquette relieved Maguire of his teaching role contending his tenure followed the Jesuit order. Maguire challenged that and ultimately won.

[Jay Bee]

Big headline in the WSJ: Marquette's Black Eye.

And they're right. Horrible antics by the University & they still don't get it. Very sad and this will influence my charitable giving to MU

They were wrong. 

[GGGG]

This "student" "child" had her own public blog which Mcadams linked to. My child would have stood her ground and given it right back at him. He would have learned you don't mess with my daughter. In fact she would have welcomed the debate.

That's not really the point.

[GGGG]

  first off, your first sentence is very short sighted-academia across the board was paying attention.  this has ramifications further than you would like to acknowledge

Nah. I work in academia and people pretty much view it as a unique set of circumstances and the inevitable outcome by a politicized court.

[GGGG]

Big headline in the WSJ: Marquette's Black Eye.

And they're right. Horrible antics by the University & they still don't get it. Very sad and this will influence my charitable giving to MU

They were wrong. 

I'm sure Marquette is having an emergency budget meeting as we speak.

[Jay Bee]

Nah. I work in academia and people pretty much view it as a unique set of circumstances and the inevitable outcome by a politicized court.

No they don't. It's bad news for the school, but great news for America.

Take the L and repent.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

How is the strengthening of the outdated tenure system great for America? Tenure needs an overhaul and this works against that

[WarriorDad]

McAdams was never fired, yet half the headlines out there proclaim it.

Absolutely correct.  Journalism and copywriters aren't what they used to be.  McAdams was never fired, but our Chicago Tribune said he was.

Marquette has a myths vs facts page  http://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/myths-vs-facts.php

[WarriorDad]

Like Roe v. Wade

Yes, it is precedent and should remain so and will. 

[jesmu84]

Yes, it is precedent and should remain so and will.

Want to place a bet on this?

[Eldon]

How is the strengthening of the outdated tenure system great for America? Tenure needs an overhaul and this works against that

Why do you say that it's outdated? 

There are costs and benefits to academic tenure.  I personally believe that the benefits far outweigh the costs, but I can't recall ever hearing someone call it outdated.

[MUBurrow]

The notion that Professor McAdams is going to be warmly received in a classroom or by the faculty of his peers is, at best, comical.  I'm not sure Marquette even has to assign him classes to teach. He's merely a faculty member and is paid as per his contract. Can't see why he would want to work in that environment.

Late to the party on this, but if you've ever met McAdams, this is the only environment he wants to work in.

[WarriorDad]

Want to place a bet on this?

Depending on the terms, would consider it. 

This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination.  Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls.  Their side uses it to drive people to the polls.  But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides.  But name the terms and will consider.

[WarriorDad]

Late to the party on this, but if you've ever met McAdams, this is the only environment he wants to work in.

That was my guess yesterday here. He enjoys teaching, and by most measures has been labeled a very good instructor. 

[MUBurrow]

That was my guess yesterday here. He enjoys teaching, and by most measures has been labeled a very good instructor.

I meant just the opposite. I'm of the opinion he wouldn't want to work anywhere where his primary goal is teaching, researching, and writing. He'd rather clash with administration, maintain his blog and chortle at owning the libs.  He would have no interest in teaching somewhere else or joining a different faculty with a strong conservative contingent because then he wouldn't be different and special.

[WarriorDad]

I meant just the opposite. I'm of the opinion he wouldn't want to work anywhere where his primary goal is teaching, researching, and writing. He'd rather clash with administration, maintain his blog and chortle at owning the libs.  He would have no interest in teaching somewhere else or joining a different faculty with a strong conservative contingent because then he wouldn't be different and special.

Has he stated he doesn't like to teach?  By teaching, it allows him to dabble in his hobby of bashing the administration (sometimes deserved, sometimes not).  If he isn't teaching, he loses that cache.   

[GGGG]

Depending on the terms, would consider it. 

This comes up as a scare tactic that it will be overturned whenever the right has a nomination.  Our side uses it to fund raise, and drive people to the polls.  Their side uses it to drive people to the polls.  But nothing ever changes in the 40 years this comes up and it will not this time either, it butters the bread for both sides.  But name the terms and will consider.

It won't be overturned. It will just keep getting nipped around the edges.

[rocket surgeon]

That this has become just another Chicos and Rocket right-wing masturbation forum says everything about the quality of this thread.

Probably time to shut 'er down.

  regardless-i think for the most part, this can be a civil topic.  there has been a lot of good information here.  your comment was unnecessary and provided nothing to the conversation.  one cannot always go into a topic thinking you are going to necessarily change peoples minds.  even when someone(dogies, tamu, warrior(s), brew, eng, hilltopper and yes sometimes even pakman) i still may disagree some, but many times come away with a "golden nugget" or two

[Babybluejeans]

our Chicago Tribune said he was

"Our" Chicago tribune. "Our" side. Another reminder that absolutely no one talks like this, and no one on this board thinks you're anyone other than you. I'm actually Lol-ing.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I'm sure Marquette is having an emergency budget meeting as we speak.

LOL!  No teal needed.