WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Lennys Tap]

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.

Not calling you or anyone else "liars". I'm sure you think that if my hypothetical were fact you would damning the MSM and praising Fox for its reporting, damning the liberal circuit court judge while celebrating that the conservative would right his wrong, etc., etc., etc. That is, however, pretty hard for me to imagine.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.

[GGGG]

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.

I did not simply "acknowledge that MU had the right to fire her."  I said "Marquette handled it well once they saw what happened.  Painting over the mural and firing Bartlow made perfect sense."

Really this entire effort from you has been quite poor.

[GGGG]

So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.

Like most freedoms, "academic freedom" is hardly absolute.  And that includes for tenured professors.

[Lighthouse 84]

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.

While that may be true as it relates to what she told the student after class, during class, by shutting down the discussion, she was telling all the students in the class what to think. 

And if I'm not mistaken, the issue of whether expressing one's religious beliefs is bigoted/hate speech is before the US Supremes, with a decision expected in a few months. 
(I double-checked.  I'm not mistaken.)

Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university? 

[GGGG]

While that may be true as it relates to what she told the student after class, during class, by shutting down the discussion, she was telling all the students in the class what to think. 

And if I'm not mistaken, the issue of whether expressing one's religious beliefs is bigoted/hate speech is before the US Supremes, with a decision expected in a few months. 
(I double-checked.  I'm not mistaken.)

Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university? 

Professors have a right in a classroom setting to determine if a certain subject is relevant to the topic at hand.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

Fair enough

[forgetful]

Do MU's established rules really include a prohibition against expressing the Catholic church's view of an issue at a Jesuit university?

No idea.  Did not intend on suggesting that. 

Most universities though do have rules that the classroom should be a place safe from threatening, offensive or harrassing speech.  Abbate in this instance said that racist/bigotted and homophobic speech could be offensive and would not be tolerated.  That statement was actually not made in class, rather after class as the student pushed the issue. 

I disagree that shutting down a discussion, because it was a bad example for that particular topic, is telling the students "what to think."  She was in the wrong, nonetheless. 

[Pakuni]

So you don't believe in academic freedom for anybody. Fair enough.

Another dumb strawman?
I believe in academic freedom. I also believe academic freedom has reasonable limits. Just like everyone here, including you  (see: your mural examples).
And just like American Association of University Professors.

That's why arguing this as a case of academic freedom is such a farce. Those on McAdams' don't truly believe any faculty member can express themselves in any manner without recourse.  They just think McAdams can express himself in this particular manner without recourse.

[Lighthouse 84]

No idea.  Did not intend on suggesting that. 

Most universities though do have rules that the classroom should be a place safe from threatening, offensive or harrassing speech.  Abbate in this instance said that racist/bigotted and homophobic speech could be offensive and would not be tolerated.  That statement was actually not made in class, rather after class as the student pushed the issue. 

I disagree that shutting down a discussion, because it was a bad example for that particular topic, is telling the students "what to think."  She was in the wrong, nonetheless.

Thanks. 

For the record then, and I'm asking because I'm not sure exactly what Abbate said in class v. what she told the student after, when did she tell the student he couldn't express his disagreement with same-sex marriage in her class?  And if after class, what exactly did she say to the student and the class while in class?

[Eldon]

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.

This is false. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Sooo glad this thread keeps popping up.   

Can we lock it until the WiSC renders their decision, so we can all rehash why it's the worst/best decision in the history of mankind?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?

I'm trying to figure out if the argument is that McAdams did nothing wrong or if the punishment did not match the crime.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Sooo glad this thread keeps popping up.   

Can we lock it until the WiSC renders their decision, so we can all rehash why it's the worst/best decision in the history of mankind?

It is your board.  If you think this topic is inappropriate for the Superbar, I'll disagree with you, but won't start any new threads for the time being. 

[mu03eng]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that no one was a bad actor in this whole scenario, like anyone is 100% a victim? I'm pretty sure everyone is a bad actor it's just a question of how significant of a bad actor you were.

[forgetful]

This is false.

It most certainly is not, most curricula require that students TA or in liberal arts disciplines teach a course as part of their education.  It is often a requirement of their graduate degree.  So my statement was certainly factual. 

As part of the Marquette Philosophy PhD, it is not a requirement, but is highly recommended as part of their expected career development. 

If your point on it being "false," is that it is not always required at all departments, then you are misinterpreting my statement and putting words in my mouth that were not stated.  I never said "always" and I never implied it either. 

The Abbate problem is the exact reason why many programs require/mandate teaching/TA'ing, which is factual, and what I said. 

[muwarrior69]

I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?

I'm trying to figure out if the argument is that McAdams did nothing wrong or if the punishment did not match the crime.

I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.

[forgetful]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that no one was a bad actor in this whole scenario, like anyone is 100% a victim? I'm pretty sure everyone is a bad actor it's just a question of how significant of a bad actor you were.

Pretty sure most think just about everyone involved was a bad actor in this case.  Just one of them committed a fireable offense. 

[Lennys Tap]

I have a question for the free McAdams crowd. Do you think his conduct was appropriate?

I'm not in the "free McAdams" crowd but I do not think his conduct was appropriate.

[Lennys Tap]

I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.

This makes way to much sense.

[Pakuni]

I think Lovell (sp?) and McAdams should have accepted the recommendation of the committee which I believe was 2 semesters without pay and perhaps this whole thing would have blown over.

Isn't this an admission of wrongdoing by McAdams?
And, if so, how does one credibly argue that he should have been suspended AND his actions are protected by academic freedom?

[muwarrior69]

Isn't this an admission of wrongdoing by McAdams?
And, if so, how does one credibly argue that he should have been suspended AND his actions are protected by academic freedom?

Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.

[Pakuni]

Not really. Lovell never gave McAdams the chance to take the committees recommendation so we'll never know.

But that's not my question.
My question is that if you and other "Team McAdams" posters think he ought to have been suspended, then how can you also argue that academic freedom protects him from being punished for his actions?
Seems either he's protected or he isn't, and the level of discipline is irrelevant.

[Blue Horseshoe]

If MU loses the case, Lovell should resign... or be forced out, right?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If MU loses the case, Lovell should resign... or be forced out, right?

No. Not even close. Do you have any idea how often universities get sued? If presidents stepped down every time the university lost a lawsuit the average turnover for the job would be a month.