MU and diversity of thought

[rocket surgeon]

seems like MU is all for diversity of thought, except...if there is more to this story, i'm all ears. 

https://wiba.iheart.com/content/2020-06-29-marquette-university-is-attacking-a-student-for-her-conservative-beliefs/

[MUfan12]

I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...

I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.

Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.

[Galway Eagle]

Look if you're against gay marriage it's a homophobic stance. If you're against a person identifying as a different gender and starting that process then it's an anti trans stance. You might not like being called those words because you don't have anything against them as people and just want them to be happy in their bubble you've set for them but the views themselves are against them.

That's what this girl is complaining about, she wants to not have a trough be called a trough but still do everything a trough does.

I'm assuming neither of us have watched her to know if she actually has incited violence but the interviewer is clearly asking leading questions so I'm inclined to believe there's more to the story.


As another note listening to something called the conservative inquisition is only confirming your already held belief that your beliefs are under attack and being removed despite holding majorities in the senate, Supreme Court, and the presidency. I mean stop playing a victim.

[Galway Eagle]

I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...

I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.

Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.

+1

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yeah read McAdams blog and listened to this.  The way she was called out on social media by others, many (most?) of whom aren't even associated with the University is wrong.  But Marquette isn't "attacking her for her conservative beliefs."  FFS, that's just clickbait.

[Pakuni]

seems like MU is all for diversity of thought, except...if there is more to this story, i'm all ears. 

https://wiba.iheart.com/content/2020-06-29-marquette-university-is-attacking-a-student-for-her-conservative-beliefs/

Everyone is entitled to express their views. And everyone else is entitled to say "those views suck."
It's terrible and wrong if anyone is bullying this girl, and very lame that some took it to Marquette, but it seems the thrust of this kerfuffle is that she's mad that people are calling her out. Boo and hoo.
At this point, it doesn't seem the university has taken any action against her.

[shoothoops]

Is there a link to an article about this somewhere? I am unfamiliar with the topic. Thanks. When I saw McAdams, I thought it was going to be about this.

https://www.marquette.edu/mcadams-case-facts/

[rocket surgeon]

Everyone is entitled to express their views. And everyone else is entitled to say "those views suck."
It's terrible and wrong if anyone is bullying this girl, and very lame that some took it to Marquette, but it seems the thrust of this kerfuffle is that she's mad that people are calling her out. Boo and hoo.
At this point, it doesn't seem the university has taken any action against her.

  they hope she gets "shot and/or "run over by a semi"  hope these aren't potential future MU students.  if MU got word of who those students were, would they call them out? 

     ya know, we all hear opposition view points all the time and the last thing i'm thinking is, boy, i've got to find this person and send them a nice juicy piece of "love".  what's wrong with people?  then, to actually write the university to complain?  they fear for their safety?  MU actually called her in to give her a "morality test"?  is this common with all incoming students? 

   

[mu03eng]

Look if you're against gay marriage it's a homophobic stance. If you're against a person identifying as a different gender and starting that process then it's an anti trans stance. You might not like being called those words because you don't have anything against them as people and just want them to be happy in their bubble you've set for them but the views themselves are against them.

That's what this girl is complaining about, she wants to not have a spade be called a spade but still do everything a spade does.

I'm assuming neither of us have watched her to know if she actually has incited violence but the interviewer is clearly asking leading questions so I'm inclined to believe there's more to the story.


As another note listening to something called the conservative inquisition is only confirming your already held belief that your beliefs are under attack and being removed despite holding majorities in the senate, Supreme Court, and the presidency. I mean stop playing a victim.

If you are against gay marriage in the context of a government recognized entity, yes. If you are against your religion recognizing a gay marriage I don't see how that is homophobic. There are lots of lifestyles you can be morally opposed to but as long as you extend all the same rights, privileges, and respect to those individuals you aren't being "whatever-phobic".

For the record, I have no idea what stance this young lady is taking and no idea yet if MU's position on it is consistent, good or bad, whatever. However, I would be really careful about shutting down any kind of speech.

[Galway Eagle]

If you are against gay marriage in the context of a government recognized entity, yes. If you are against your religion recognizing a gay marriage I don't see how that is homophobic. There are lots of lifestyles you can be morally opposed to but as long as you extend all the same rights, privileges, and respect to those individuals you aren't being "whatever-phobic".

You are correct, I should have been more specific. For the record I'm against anybody trying to force a religion to bend to its knee and am adamantly pro separation of church and state and believe it goes both ways and that ministers should have no say in political matters. So as you put it, you can be morally opposed to it but if you're voting against it or trying to overturn it then that is homophobic.

For the record, I have no idea what stance this young lady is taking and no idea yet if MU's position on it is consistent, good or bad, whatever. However, I would be really careful about shutting down any kind of speech.

Agree which is again why I think we need someone young to report back about these videos. If she was reiterating the pro violence toward the protestors approach that the POTUS tweeted about then yes MU was correct stating her videos put peoples lives in danger. If she's just stating she's against socialized tuition, social healthcare, abortion (from a non religious perspective), tightening immigration, pro guns, etc then those are just conservative beliefs she has the right to talk about.

[MUfan12]

Is there a link to an article about this somewhere? I am unfamiliar with the topic.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2020/06/marquette-threatens-to-cancel.html

[Hards Alumni]

I saw McAdams post, and was debating on whether to bring it here or not...

I sincerely hope there is more to this than what's being said. While I disagree with her, if this is the standard for potentially revoking acceptance... yikes.

Also, those students who threatened her should also have their conduct reviewed by the University.

You're listening to a conservative talk radio show.  There is obviously more to it than what is being presented.  How else would they be able to sell the outrage?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Responding to these types of situations for TAMU is one of my job responsibilities. A few things I noticed:

1. If current MU students are sending death threats to Samantha, Marquette can and should look into holding them accountable. Its possible they already are, its also possible that the death threats are from people who are not currently MU students or employees which means there is nothing MU can do. In my experience, usually threats of violence are coming from people with no affiliation to the university.

2. The whole outrage over "they contacted the reporter three days before talking to Samantha" is ridiculous. When a school receives an allegation of discriminatory/harassing behavior by a student they will of course respond right away to the reporter to let them know that they received the allegation and will look into it. That's not a promise to punish the respondent, just an acknowledgement that they received the allegation. The school will then look into the allegation to see if there is any merit to it and decide how they want to proceed. Three days is a reasonable amount of time for that to occur in.

3. They give very vanilla descriptions of what Samantha posted. I'd be curious what she actually said to spark that level of hate. Especially that whole thing about "they found a comment from three years ago." Usually when things like this get brought to me at TAMU, the respondent said a lot more than "I support Donald Trump." To be clear, no matter what she said, death threats and bullying are not warranted. But maybe reporting her to the school was.

4. I don't know what the purpose of the Dean meeting with her was. I suspect that it wasn't any sort of disciplinary conversation. It was likely educational in nature and an attempt to get her to reflect on the impact that her social media posts could have. That's how I've handled similar cases when someone may have crossed the line into hate speech. The goal isn't to punish or to get them to change their beliefs but rather get them to reflect on how they may have impacted others and how their words could impact their future given the permanence of the internet. I would never recommend rescinding an admission offer for free speech, no matter how hateful. That being said, I work for a public institution and MU is private, they have more leeway than I do. Still, my guess is that her admission offer is not and was never in jeopardy.

5. Her main complaint doesn't seem to be about the university but rather about how people (some of whom are MU students) have treated her online. Again, death threats and bullying is not an appropriate response to free speech, no matter how hateful. But someone calling her racist or hateful or homophobic is just as much free speech as whatever she posted initially. She has every right to free speech and her critics have every right to use their free speech to criticize her free speech. God bless the first amendment.

[Hards Alumni]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2020/06/marquette-threatens-to-cancel.html

Out of curiosity, when you read the title of that blog post, do you see what is inherently wrong with it?

[Pakuni]

As is often the case, TAMU nails it.

[MUfan12]

Out of curiosity, when you read the title of that blog post, do you see what is inherently wrong with it?

He asked for a link and I responded. I didn't say it was gospel.

I think you're looking for an argument with someone largely on your side here.

[GB Warrior]

Responding to these types of situations for TAMU is one of my job responsibilities. A few things I noticed:

1. If current MU students are sending death threats to Samantha, Marquette can and should look into holding them accountable. Its possible they already are, its also possible that the death threats are from people who are not currently MU students or employees which means there is nothing MU can do. In my experience, usually threats of violence are coming from people with no affiliation to the university.

2. The whole outrage over "they contacted the reporter three days before talking to Samantha" is ridiculous. When a school receives an allegation of discriminatory/harassing behavior by a student they will of course respond right away to the reporter to let them know that they received the allegation and will look into it. That's not a promise to punish the respondent, just an acknowledgement that they received the allegation. The school will then look into the allegation to see if there is any merit to it and decide how they want to proceed. Three days is a reasonable amount of time for that to occur in.

3. They give very vanilla descriptions of what Samantha posted. I'd be curious what she actually said to spark that level of hate. Especially that whole thing about "they found a comment from three years ago." Usually when things like this get brought to me at TAMU, the respondent said a lot more than "I support Donald Trump." To be clear, no matter what she said, death threats and bullying are not warranted. But maybe reporting her to the school was.

4. I don't know what the purpose of the Dean meeting with her was. I suspect that it wasn't any sort of disciplinary conversation. It was likely educational in nature and an attempt to get her to reflect on the impact that her social media posts could have. That's how I've handled similar cases when someone may have crossed the line into hate speech. The goal isn't to punish or to get them to change their beliefs but rather get them to reflect on how they may have impacted others and how their words could impact their future given the permanence of the internet. I would never recommend rescinding an admission offer for free speech, no matter how hateful. That being said, I work for a public institution and MU is private, they have more leeway than I do. Still, my guess is that her admission offer is not and was never in jeopardy.

5. Her main complaint doesn't seem to be about the university but rather about how people (some of whom are MU students) have treated her online. Again, death threats and bullying is not an appropriate response to free speech, no matter how hateful. But someone calling her racist or hateful or homophobic is just as much free speech as whatever she posted initially. She has every right to free speech and her critics have every right to use their free speech to criticize her free speech. God bless the first amendment.

Pack it up, guys. Professionals have weighed in.

[Hards Alumni]

He asked for a link and I responded. I didn't say it was gospel.

I think you're looking for an argument with someone largely on your side here.

I'm not trying to look for an argument, but that link is pretty yikes.  It's a blog with a lot of missing information.   

[tower912]

On-line bullying and threats of violence is wrong.    Using your first amendment rights to comment on how someone else uses their first amendment rights is fine.     We do it here all the time.     Like it or not, people judge everything that gets posted.    MU82 had been judged.   Chicos, rocket, Ners, me, TAMU, .... it doesn't matter.     You are entitled to your opinion.    And others are entitled to judge and comment on that opinion when posted.   


If you don't want to be called racist, homophobic, etc, don't post racist or homophobic things.   If you hate being called a liar, quit lying.  If you think the most important thing is for you to get your opinion out there, live with the consequences.   

[shoothoops]

Let me know when there is something detailed, specific, decently objective that I can read, listen to or watch when that happens. I can't really comment until I have a more complete understanding (or any understanding) about this topic. 👍

[forgetful]

TAMU, spot on.

One additional detail. McAdams and the radio reporter go to great length not to mention "Samantha's" real name for fear of bringing more vitriol against her.

But they openly share the person's, who reported her, name and social media handle. Again showing that his/their real goal is to bring hate/animosity back towards the other individual. That makes them as bad as those threatening "Samantha" to begin with. They are doing the very thing they criticize others for, and on a much bigger platform.

[Galway Eagle]

TAMU, spot on.

One additional detail. McAdams and the radio reporter go to great length not to mention "Samantha's" real name for fear of bringing more vitriol against her.

But they openly share the person's, who reported her, name and social media handle. Again showing that his/their real goal is to bring hate/animosity back towards the other individual. That makes them as bad as those threatening "Samantha" to begin with. They are doing the very thing they criticize others for, and on a much bigger platform.

Hmm McAdams trying to protect someone who agrees with him politically while doxing a person who doesn't to his angry mob? Where have I heard that one before...

[Warrior2008]

On-line bullying and threats of violence is wrong.    Using your first amendment rights to comment on how someone else uses their first amendment rights is fine.     We do it here all the time.     Like it or not, people judge everything that gets posted.    MU82 had been judged.   Chicos, rocket, Ners, me, TAMU, .... it doesn't matter.     You are entitled to your opinion.    And others are entitled to judge and comment on that opinion when posted.   


If you don't want to be called racist, homophobic, etc, don't post racist or homophobic things.   If you hate being called a liar, quit lying.  If you think the most important thing is for you to get your opinion out there, live with the consequences.

Agreed. This is really only a story if Marquette rescinds her acceptance, which I highly doubt they will nor should they.  Universities should be places where young adults are allowed to debate competing ideas thoughtfully in way to prepare them for real life.  But one of the tough realities people, especially teenagers, don't seem to understand is if you post something on social media platforms, the post is in the public domain and is thus open for criticism both fair and unfair from all corners of the internet.  And if you post something incendiary, you're likely going to get an incendiary response.  That's not to say threatening physical violence against her is appropriate, its actually quite the opposite and Marquette should follow up with any current student or faculty member doing so.  But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.

[mu03eng]

But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.

Speech suppression and victim shaming all in one sentence, bravo or brava.

In all seriousness, that is a real bad prescident you're setting there. Don't post things others find harmful because then you deserve whatever comes your way? What if its speech you find acceptable but others find hateful, what then, can they shout you down?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Agreed. This is really only a story if Marquette rescinds her acceptance, which I highly doubt they will nor should they.  Universities should be places where young adults are allowed to debate competing ideas thoughtfully in way to prepare them for real life.  But one of the tough realities people, especially teenagers, don't seem to understand is if you post something on social media platforms, the post is in the public domain and is thus open for criticism both fair and unfair from all corners of the internet.  And if you post something incendiary, you're likely going to get an incendiary response.  That's not to say threatening physical violence against her is appropriate, its actually quite the opposite and Marquette should follow up with any current student or faculty member doing so.  But if her concerns are people are being mean to her on social media, well then my response would be don't post harmful things on social media.

Going on talk radio to play the victim doesn't lead me to believe that she's approaching her upcoming enrollment with an open mind.