WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[GGGG]

Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.

Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.

You are also ignoring the fact that McAdams did not follow proper procedure when dealing with issues such as these.

Look, just say that you want McAdams to win because he is a conservative.  At least you would be intellectually honest in doing so instead of justifying it like you are attempting to do now.

[mayfairskatingrink]

Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.

Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.

I'm 100% sure the Justices will be asking about the woman being a student vs teacher/employee issue, and that will not break Lovell's way.

[GGGG]

I'm 100% sure the Justices will be asking about the woman being a student vs teacher/employee issue, and that will not break Lovell's way.

Well she is a student. It would be a case of judicial activism at its worse.

[Lennys Tap]

Let's do a complete 180 on this.

Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.

Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.

There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.

I would raise my hand.  To me this is all about the University having control when an early career employee (student, intern, partial teacher, whatever) is ID'd/attacked on an open blog by a senior member of an organization -- after being warned once before. 

If I went after someone in my company in the same way (i.e. a 1st job employee in someone elses organization), my company would probably do more than warn me on round one and would likely do the same in round two.  In my mind it is about organizational control and being able to foster a workplace where it is not condoned to publicly go after co-workers - particularly when names were named.   

BTW everyone in this situation is not one bit admirable - but that is a different story.

[tower912]

My job has social media rules.  And there is progressive discipline.  It has been made clear that we can be punished up to and including discharge.  The same was made clear to McAdams.   We have recently fired a training chief for continuing to flout rules after repeated warnings.   Same with McAdams.   Break the rules often enough....

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Neither one of you two read what I wrote. My whole point is this rubs both way.

Also TAMU as is your norm you conveniently ignore half the issue which is that the TA bullies a student . Of course you want it both ways for the TA, that is treat her like a student when it is convenient to and ignore the fact she is a University employee.

When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.

[jesmu84]

Even if this is considered a first amendment issue.. isn't there a limit? People have been fired all over the place for their behavior - verbal or otherwise - on the internet/social media/wherever.

[GGGG]

Let's do a complete 180 on this.

Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.

Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.

There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.

I would 100% support Marquette in this scenario.  Not even a question.  This entire issue is about a University faculty member who failed repeatedly in his responsibilities after being warned.

And remember that I supported Bartlow getting fired after the mural incident.  Politics isn't my main motivation by any stretch.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47617.msg731625#msg731625

Pretty weak effort Lennys.

[Jay Bee]

#FreeMcAdams

Those who agree are in the RIGHT.

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

[Lennys Tap]

When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.

I thought her supervisor was the guy who taped the kid who taped her.

[muwarrior69]

I would raise my hand.  To me this is all about the University having control when an early career employee (student, intern, partial teacher, whatever) is ID'd/attacked on an open blog by a senior member of an organization -- after being warned once before. 

If I went after someone in my company in the same way (i.e. a 1st job employee in someone elses organization), my company would probably do more than warn me on round one and would likely do the same in round two.  In my mind it is about organizational control and being able to foster a workplace where it is not condoned to publicly go after co-workers - particularly when names were named.   

BTW everyone in this situation is not one bit admirable - but that is a different story.

He names her but never attacked her. The court will ultimately sort all this out.

[GGGG]

He names her but never attacked her. The court will ultimately sort all this out.

You are being quite naive. 

[Herman Cain]

When did I say I was opposed the TA being disciplined? She should have been (and I believe was) disciplined...by her supervisor....not by a random professor venting about her online.

This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct  jurisdiction for .

This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.

I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment.  I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.


The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.

[forgetful]

Let's do a complete 180 on this.

Suppose a male TA teaching a Christian Marriage course at MU announces that since a) MU is a Catholic school and b) Gay Marriage is not allowed in the Catholic Church, he will not entertain any discussion of gay rights, marital or otherwise, in his class. One of his female students is appalled and goes to visit him during office hours. She presses him, he tells her views are bigoted and that because they may offend catholics in the class that he won't tolerate a discussion of them. She tapes his remarks and brings them to a tenured, liberal, activist professor who has a blog. He publishes a summary of the TA's remarks in his blog. The TA gets some hate mail and threats and leaves for Liberty University. The liberal prof won't apologize (this isn't the first time he's been warned), so Lovell (against the recommendation of a faculty committee), fires him. A liberal judge finds against Marquette and for the prof and now the case heads for the more conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court, who will likely overturn and find in favor of Lovell and the university.

Raise your hand if you think Sultan et al a) cry crocodile tears for the student teacher, b) support Lovell, c) are angered by the liberal "activist" judge's decision or d) are comforted that the reasonable Supremes will rectify the injustice. If your hand is up, I have some land in Arizona with plenty of water I'd like to sell you.

There may be a couple of Scoopers on the university's side whose opinion doesn't come down to politics (Glow, maybe TAMU, maybe someone I'm forgetting). I see solid arguments on both sides of this issue, whether argued by Pakuni or Guerrero. But one side trying to claim the moral high ground is laughable - opinions on both sides are informed by politics.

Would 100% support the institution firing the professor.  This is a matter of publicly naming a student and attacking them in an online forum.  That is 100% a violation of our responsibilities as an educator and a fireable offense.

The subject matter at hand is irrelevant.

If they were reprimanded in the past, and refused to take corrective action, they deserve to have tenure revoked. 

If I had done the same thing, I would fully expect to be fired for it. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct  jurisdiction for .

This is the opposite of what I said. The TA was wrong. What she did was inappropriate. Nothing about it was ok. She needed to be disciplined and I believe she was.

And just like the TA's inappropriate behavior needed to be addressed, so did McAdams'.

This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Again, I would point out that I'm advocating that BOTH McAdams AND the TA be disciplined for their actions. The only one seeming to be advocating for the goose to be let off free but the gander be punished is you. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument.

I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment.  I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed.

I am sorry you had to live through bigotry and racism. No one should have to but its a reality that many do. I'm glad you were able to find a way to turn it to your advantage, let it make you better. I reject the idea that bigotry and racism must always be a part of our world and will continue to fight for that belief. I think that is what our Jesuit values call us to do. Luke 3:5.

Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that.

Careful about the naive young person stuff. Heisey might come in here and turn this into another thread about how millennials are better than crusty old boomers 

[jesmu84]

This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct  jurisdiction for .

This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.

I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment.  I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.


The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.

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.

[GGGG]

This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct  jurisdiction for .

Actually that's the exact opposite of what he said. 

[Jay Bee]

This is where you want it both ways. It is okay for the TA to express her view to a directly subordinate student and yet it is not Ok for McAdams to express his views about someone he has absolutely no direct  jurisdiction for .

This is the core of the liberal thought police ideology of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

At the end of the day, the court will make a political decision and we will all move on to the next case.

I am rooting for McAdams because I am sick of the politically correct environment.  I lived through more Bigotry and racisim than many people, I never let it get me down and because of that prospered because of it. I never took it personally and just tried to make myself a better person and tried to add value. I chose to go to Wall Street because they cared more about green the color of money than my skin color and I never looked backed. Of course naive young people like yourself do not understand that. You clutch your cudgel of Title ix like it set forth from Moses.


The liberal agenda hurts the people they intend to help the most.

Herman is speaking some truth! #FreeMcAdams

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

McAdams is free. Mission accomplished.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

Forgot about that. God this guy takes the cake for creepiest all time on here... and that's not an easy task

[Lennys Tap]

Would 100% support the institution firing the professor.  This is a matter of publicly naming a student and attacking them in an online forum.  That is 100% a violation of our responsibilities as an educator and a fireable offense.

The subject matter at hand is irrelevant.

If they were reprimanded in the past, and refused to take corrective action, they deserve to have tenure revoked. 

If I had done the same thing, I would fully expect to be fired for it.

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. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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

[Galway Eagle]

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

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

[GGGG]

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. 

Nice try.  You're wrong. 

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