There is an interesting controversy out of Marquette University, which has moved to suspend and possibly fire Professor John McAdams after his criticism of a junior faculty member Cheryl Abbate in a free speech dispute. Abbate was recorded by a student in saying that his views against same-sex marriage were not appropriate to be voiced in her class. The response of the university has some problematic elements for a free speech perspective.
The controversy began in October 2014 in a philosophy class when a student attempted to discuss his opposing view of same-sex marriage. He said that the class was run on the assumption that support for same-sex marriage and other homosexual rights were beyond dispute. The student approached Graduate Assistant Cheryl Abbate after the class to say that he felt that the class should have been able to discuss the issue. He recorded the conversation where he said “Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.” Abbate allegedly responded by saying: “There are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful — such as racist opinions, sexist opinions and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”
The student gave the tape to McAdams, who posted it with criticism of Abbate on his conservative blog. After being informed of the posting, the university ordered McAdams to stay off campus and the cancellation of this second semester classes. In a January 30th letter, Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz informed McAdams “in accord with Section 307.03, we are commencing as of this date the procedures for revoking your tenure and dismissing you from the faculty.” He specifically noted that the use of the instructor’s name exposed her to hate mail, though the quoted messages are from third parties and McAdams can object that he has no control or responsibility over such individuals. Holy noted that [i]nstead of being a mentor to a graduate student instructor learning her craft, including how to deal with challenging students, you took the opportunity to publicly disparage her.”
I can see the basis for that objection. This was an after-class conversation and there are real collegiality concerns. This is particularly problematic when a recording is made secretly of a colleague. While I am unsure of the status of such one-party consent recordings in this state, such recordings would be unlawful in those states requiring both parties to consent. Since the focus does not appear to be any illegality, I assume that it is the propriety of the posting not the legality of recording that is the main issue in dispute. Moreover, Abbate objected that McAdams distorted the facts and that she simply wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. Finally, the blog unleashed a torrent of hate mail for this graduate student in her handling of the issue.
Abbate appears to have tried to avoid the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the discussion of John Rawls’s equal liberty principle under which every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others. She had asked for examples of violations of this principle and raised classic examples of seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs. That is when one student raised the ban on gay marriage violated the principle. That would seem to be an interesting example for debate. Indeed, in my legal philosophy class, I often raise that and other controversies as good vehicles for passionate and contemporary debates. Abbate clearly did not want to trigger a broader debate and cut off the example. That caused the student to object later to being “very disappointed” and “personally offended.” The conversation after class included the suggestion of the student that he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life.” Those studies have been heavily criticized but, in my view, such debates only deepen the interest and understanding of such theories. Abbate also objected that McAdams erroneously attributed a quote to her: that “everyone agrees with gay rights and there is no need to discuss this.” (During the class, Abbate said she did say “it seemed right to me” that a ban on gay marriage would not be in accordance with Rawls’s equal liberty principle). All of these objections raise legitimate questions over the fairness and accuracy of McAdams’ postings.
However, there are also the merits of the original dispute over the propriety of students from raising opposing views of such things as same-sex marriage in a philosophy class. While it is true that he heavily criticized the graduate student in the controversy, he was also supporting a student who felt censored in the class. Moreover, while McAdams brought attention to the dispute, the student appears to have already moved to publicly raise the conflict with his teacher. Once this becomes a public dispute, McAdams has a free speech right to discuss its implications as well as an interest as an academic. After all if it is considered a violation for a student to raise such views (even in a philosophy class), it could also be claimed that faculty members are barred from such discussions.
McAdams did not hold back on his blog. He denounced the teaching assistant for “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” McAdams was raising a growing expansion of speech codes on campuses where academics are being disciplined for “micro aggressions” and insensitive statements in raising such controversies. Indeed, as we recently discussed, even when an academic is “cleared” she can face remedial actions and training. While the posting was problematic in various respects, I believe McAdams had a perfect right to discuss a campus controversy and weigh into the merits. This could have done by presenting the general controversy (without the use of a secret taping of a colleague) and ask if the expression of such views do run afoul of the university rules.
In a letter to the Marquette community, Marquette University President Dr. Michael Lovell said the stated:
“Following the faculty statutes, a Faculty Hearing Committee made up of seven of Professor McAdams’ peers conducted a hearing over a period of four days last September. The committee consisted of a diverse set of tenured faculty members from different academic disciplines. After months of deliberations, the committee issued a thorough 123-page report to my office in January regarding Professor McAdams’ actions. It is noteworthy to mention that the report provided a unanimous recommendation on a path forward regarding the issue under consideration.
“Today, I want you to know that after significant personal deliberation, I have decided to formally implement the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation. While I cannot provide specific details of the recommendation because it relates to a personnel matter, I can assure you that my decision has been guided by Marquette University’s values and is solely based on Professor McAdams’ actions, and not political or ideological views expressed in his blog.
“In closing, I want to sincerely thank the seven faculty members who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee. They provided substantial service to the university through their extremely thorough, objective and diligent approach throughout this process.”
McAdams was informed that he would be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016 and that he lose his job unless he admits “guilt” and apologized “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, the demand is “Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.”
McAdams views this punishment as a demand for a public confession and denounced what he saw as an “Inquisition.” He also noted that the faculty committee had not demanded such a public apology. In his response, McAdams refused to yield on principle even if it may cost him his position:
The addition of a demand that we abase ourself and issue an apology and sign a loyalty oath to vaguely defined “guiding values” and to the University’s “mission” is obviously a ploy by Marquette to give the administration an excuse to fire us. They have calculated, correctly, that we will do no such thing.
I have deep concerns over the suspension for the expression of free speech by McAdams outside of his class. This was speech that occurred in the public realm and touched on an issue of growing concern for academics. There is a new debate over impact of social media on academics and whether there is content-based approach to such controversies. For example, we previously debated the status of Boston University sociology professor Saida Grundy after a series of racist postings on social media. Boston University retained Grundy. Likewise, a Memphis professor, Zandria Robinson, has triggered the same debate after denouncing whites and insisting that “whiteness is most certainly and inevitably terror.” However, in Robinson’s case, she was rehired by Rhodes College, which seemed to view her controversial comments as a positive element supporting her appointment. I have tended to oppose efforts to terminate or discipline academics for such postings on free speech grounds and, in some cases, academic freedom grounds.
The Holz letter has some particularly troublesome elements like blaming McAdams for the reaction of unhinged third parties for calling the instructor a “traitor” and other bizarre comments. It also took him to task for criticizing the department chair who Holz insisted had incomplete information. Yet, I know of no rule at most universities barring public criticism of a department chair. Moreover, the letter criticizes him for failing to fully confer with the instructor or to get permission to use her name. Once again, the class was publicly registered and the name known to the student. I know of no rule against naming colleagues or requiring consent for the use of a name on a private blog or in a public communication. I understand the criticism of the alleged inaccuracies. I also agree that collegiality and civility concerns are valid. It may be true that most academics would have refrained from the use of the instructor’s name if it was not widely known (particularly with the added concern over secret recordings), but that is not a binding or legal requirement for McAdams.
This case is a closer question because of the accuracy of the account and the use of a secretly used recording of a colleague. The fact that this is a graduate student should have also tempered McAdams’ response. However, the free speech concerns seemed to have been dismissed and the punishment is quite severe. Could McAdams have handled (and written on) this controversy in a more restrained and collegial fashion? Yes, I think he could have. Yet, the underlying uncertainty over the discussion of such views is troubling and worthy of public debate.
What do you think?
There’s one side to every story!
The only First Amendment issue implicated here is the freedom of association clause that protects Marquette’s right to proceed as it has been. This private university is perfectly entitled to set standards, both for academics and civility, that are higher than those of a home school.
Just how much class time must the professor (and the rest of the class) devote to the disproved rants of fundamentalists? Should the geology professor (and class) be forced to devote their class time counting the “begats” in the Bible to see whether the earth is only six thousand years old? How much time must the paleontology professor (and class) devote to addressing how Noah fit all the dinosaurs on the Ark? Must an astronomy professor (and class) devote their time to addressing whether the earth is really the flat center of the universe with a giant dome containing all the stars and planets within? How much time should a maths professor spend discussing whether the value of pi is 3.0 as the Bible implies?
Marquette isn’t cheap, and I doubt many students want to pay their money to listen to a genetics professor debunking Genesis because a fundamentalist student doesn’t believe in evolution.
Freedom of speech does not require that clearly losing arguments be addressed over and over merely because the losing side refuses to acknowledge defeat. The debunked studies (“debunked” not “criticized”) the student wished to discuss added nothing to the class, but could have easily derailed the discussion to a general argument about gay marriage based on shoddy, disproved studies. While I’m sure that the student would have loved that result (What fundamentalist doesn’t enjoy the veneer of respectability their views obtain merely by repetition in an academic environment?), I’m also sure that the other students’ were being deprived of time that could have been spent doing what they are actually paying for.
Maybe this student might be better off at a place like Liberty where the substitution of religion for academic study is encouraged. Bonus: he’d only have to buy one book.
Is this what modern liberalism has devolved into? The gay rights issue aside, this is a clear example of how the modern University classroom has become nothing more than an indoctrination into “only approved speech” is allowed. Any or topic involved is secondary to this most important issue.
If liberal/socialist professors are allowed to censor whatever speech they choose, because they feel that it is politically in-correct, then the bulk of our University professors are no better than the Brown Shirt S/A Nazi’s of the 1930s.
Most Americans have has enough. The far left/socialists don’t even try and hide their true agenda’s anymore. There is a reason that Republican’s now control more seats in Congress and the Senate since the 1920s, and more State legislatures than at anytime since the Civil War.
Obama may have one the 2012 POTUS election, but the self correcting forces of our Republic has countered against this left wing push since the 2010 Mod-Term elections.
Please continue to laugh, lie, and make fun of Donald Trump. The truth is that the Democrats are scared to death of running against him. He will not hold anything back and will fight to the last breath for We the People.
Please continue anti-Trump BLM protests. Each and every time you do, the Dems lose more White Democrats who are feed up with it.
Nick,
Breaking news: Black widow vs Praying Mantis. Mantis turns yellow belly.
I love seeing the battles between our barrister and doctor. Those 2 professions are like the mongoose and cobra, natural enemies.
I looked up philosophers by tradition & can’t find any gay listing. Except these:
Analytic, existentialists, phenomenologists, critical theorists, eastern, Marxist, anarchist,
Environmental, epicurean, humanists, rationalists, scholastic, stoic & utilitarians.
I wonder what Obama’s philosophy is on 61 people whose sentences were just commuted. Most are drug and gun dealers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/30/here-are-the-61-people-whose-sentences-obama-just-commuted/?wpisrc=nl_az_most
KCFleming writes, “US Catholic universities aren’t religious and most decidedly are not Roman Catholic. . . . OTOH, most US Catholics aren’t Catholic.”
Most KCFlemings aren’t KCFlemings. How’s Pleasantville today? Sun not out again?
John Smith: It took you this long to decide a religious institution is phony? How do you expect Marquette to persuade that ‘tweener to enroll his or her parents’ bank roll without restricting speech?
We wouldn’t want them enrolling at Cal-Berkeley only to learn heathen free-speech rights. Would we?
To conclude with my third link:
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2016/03/marquette-theology-professor-critiques.html
This was the first post I read searching for the original. McAdams seems to be a good parallel of Professor Turley, fighting for freedom of speech and rights. A man of integrity is being hounded out of his position for daring to draw his own conclusions.
This is the kind of man who would one day die for his belief, than submit to what he holds in his heart as false. There are many like him, yet.
People continue to be amazed that Trump can make non PC, stupid, uninformed comments and go up in the polls. Normal people are “SICK AND TIRED OF THIS AND AREN’T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!” Trump is our Howard Beale.
It’s funny, I took journalism in high school. I was a terrible journalist. Slept through the mid-term, showed up an hour and a half late to the final and then wrote a fantastic and passionate essay about why I would never be a journalist because I just don’t care.
Oh the cruel twist of fate! I am now compelled to dig so that the truth may out! I was trained as some sort of scientist, and we all know they seek the ultimate truth. In doing so, I must also convey what I learn to those less capable or curious.
Here is the Professor’s original post which sparked this thing. TRIGGER WARNING: LOGIC AHEAD
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
———
https://ceabbate.wordpress.com/
A philosophy doctoral student. In the kerfuffle we are discussing here, she was the INSTRUCTOR of the class. Now, most good teachers know that you can simultaneously be a teacher and a student. As there is ever more to learn, and one must accept that you don’t know most things.
Cheryl was in fact the controlling authority of the classroom, and by assuming such a role it is also assumed that she had the maturity and integrity, and as well as a curiosity for the ultimate truth- she should be treated formally as the educator she was. Do not conflate her with being a mere student in this position.
———
To the original MU-Warrior post, does anyone who reads it see what this all about? Where is the libel? This is about silencing all independent avenues of thought and discussion. Even if you don’t agree with what I’ve said here, just by reading it gives you thoughts and ideas, and spurs the workings of your brain. Perhaps even more so. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT!
This is what higher ed is all about!
Now striking Marquette University off the list for future educational choices.
Oh and I’m Catholic and I resent these phonies.
I would not be surprised if Marquette had a Planned Parenthood Center on campus. Jesuit colleges are not Catholic. I am surprised the grad student did not delve into the discussion. Unless this guy was assigned to mentor this grad student he should not have to apologize. It appears the committee did not ask for it.
US Catholic universities aren’t religious and most decidedly are not Roman Catholic.
The liberal barbarian invaders took the campuses over.
They retained the names only because of property and brand issues.
OTOH, most US Catholics aren’t Catholic.
In Prof. Turley’s previous post , I showed evidence that:
“Colleges in the 1950s were more politically diverse than colleges today, which are now rigidly conformist liberal orthodoxies.”
Indeed, college students are Colleges are 99.21% pure leftist-liberal.
The Turley blog liberals present were unable to present evidence otherwise, showing only that the race and gender mix changed (which is not the same thing).
randyjet claimed however that “Nobody has gone to prison or even been arrested on any college campus for speaking unpopular ideas. They have not lost jobs for their views, as was done to a number of friends of mine.”
Well, here’s someone getting fired right now, randyjet.
What say you?
The truth is on my side …again:
I think that the article focuses too much on the content of the conversation and the issue of same sex this or that. It shoulld focus on the issue of secretly tape recording a conversation and then publicizing it to the world.
@ bam bam: There are quite a few so-called Catholic colleges that are C in name only. Georgetown, Marquette, University of San Francisco, to name a few. There is a guidebook for C parents which distinguishes real C colleges from those who were hijacked in the 1960s by leftist faculty and administrators, and never looked back. It’s kind of amusing to see some of these exceedingly liberal C colleges like Georgetown now claiming to be C because they don’t want to pay the full freight for insurance coverage under ObamaCare. They’re okay with gay marriages and trannies in your kid’s bathroom, but when they’re told they have to pay for birth control, OMG, they’re suddenly Catholic again!
The teacher McAdams’ criticized (and, I think it’s fair to say, lied about) was a graduate student.
As I understand it, this was the third time that McAdams has excoriated a liberal student on his blog, always with the result of a torrent of hate mail directed at the target of his criticism. That it happened twice before makes it hard to believe that McAdams didn’t know what would happen when he named this student on his blog.
From a free speech perspective, I agree that McAdams isn’t responsible for what third parties say. But he also has responsibilities as a professor. Professors have an ethical duty to be mindful of the well-being of students. Deliberately making a student into a target for hate mail is behavior that a college can rightfully discipline a professor for.
I think that the college has a reasonable case that McAdams is being diciplined, not for the political content of his speech, but for failing in his responsibilities to a student.
Well, the inconvenient truth is that Marquette is a Catholic University. Yep, folks, it sure is–you may not want to acknowledge that seemingly inconsequential fact, but this is a university which is–wait for it–an institution, which is inextricably connected to Catholicism. Just a fact. What, therefore, is the Catholic Church’s position–sorry about the pun–on homosexuality? Does the Church, itself, validate and approve of homosexual unions? Save me the diatribes about pedophile priests. They acted outside the scope of Church doctrine–not in accordance with it. If the Church, itself, doesn’t validate or approve of homosexuality–and it doesn’t–students shouldn’t be forcefully subjected to classrooms in which a pro-gay agenda is strictly enforced and where students, agreeing with the Church, are silenced. Many students specifically attend Catholic institutions precisely because of their connection with and adherence to Church doctrine. Looks like the animals have now invaded Marquette and are running the place. Bravo.
Well, while we are being “collegial and civil”, the fascists are running amok on campus. It is time to get mad and start calling them what they are, little Brown Shirt fascists.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter