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?
Turns out my “absolutely outrageous statement” was completely true.
Steve, you are reliably wrong.
http://2tzms222h2ff3dfce824gngnno8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/Catholics-divide-growing.png
KCFleming, you’re hallucinating. According to your own graph, in an attempt to interpret its ambiguity, ~27% of the population identified as Catholic in the early ’70s and ~23% identified as Catholic two or three years ago. I’ll refresh your memory: you stated “most US Catholics are not Catholics.”
Where’s the beef, other than in your arrogant pleasantries?
Totally missing from this article is the fact that John McAdams is widely known as a promoter of the U.S. Government’s “lone nut gunman” scenario for the John F. Kennedy assassination. He even has his own website dedicated to promoting the canard. So these charges against McAdams are quite ironic indeed when you consider the evidence that Jim Garrison obtained that implicated Clay Shaw and David Ferrie — two homosexuals — for their roles in the JFK murder. However, I don’t doubt that even if Marquette University were to fire McAdams, he will land safely on his feet somewhere. The CIA always takes good care of its friends, and McAdams has gone above and beyond duty in promoting their lies.
steveg:
I was raised Catholic. He may be referring to the fact that many Catholics have become either non practicing, do not attend church, or do not follow many of the tenets of their faith. They are Catholic in name only. Some were driven away by the pedophile priest coverup, while others have issues with the Church’s non-doctrinal traditions, such as only allowing (supposedly) celibate men to be priests or the prohibition against birth control. If you go to a Catholic Church nowadays, the congregation is decidedly grayer than it was a couple of decades ago.
Karen, please don’t mitigate KCFleming’s absolutely outrageous statement that “most US Catholics aren’t Catholics.” What may be his Catholicism may not be another’s. He impliedly demands strict adherence to whatever definition of Catholicism he believes which reduces all others within the faith to aberration and is religious discrimination at its worst. No wonder he’s for barring all Muslims from entering the country. When Muslims are shut out, he’ll be aiming at Catholics who don’t subscribe to his sect. Whatever he may be referring to doesn’t make him right.
.
Liberals do not seem to feel much compassion for the doctors who took a 30% pay cut with Obamacare, the patients who had cancer who could no longer travel to the best specialist for their disease because of the restricted networks of Obamacare, or for those who are not subsidized who now have to pay far more for health insurance than ever before. In fact, the middle class now foregoes health care because it cannot afford the deductible, or all the extra costs that are no longer covered, all so women can have 26 forms of birth control without a copay. Sure, women with cancer might die instead of achieving remission thanks to that restricted network, but by golly, they won’t have to pay $5 out of pocket for the birth control pill.
In my own experience, when I described how my excellent insurance was cancelled and I had to pay an 1100% higher deductible and doubled premiums, essentially Cadillac premiums with Catastrophic Only deductibles, it was typically met with derision. I am increasingly of the belief that the Liberal party is trending towards divisiveness, absolute control, and utter heartlessness. It does not even seem to care about the damage it does to the communities it claims it wants to help, namely, the poor. When the minimum wage skyrocketed, it is now apparent that women’s shelters and free drug rehab centers are unable to help as many people, because their budget stayed the same while their labor costs went up. Or when Liberals make the cost of business so high that unemployment rises, obviously, because profit and budget remain the same as labor and operating costs rise. Sure, minimum wage is higher, but jobs are scarcer. And on average, people get raises out of minimum wage within a year, so it wasn’t really an issue. Instead of focusing on creating more opportunities, expanding entrepreneurship, lowering obstacles for business ownership,
Liberals keep trying to make it easier to support a family doing entry level work. We keep exporting our STEM and other professional jobs, while desperately trying to maintain the middle class at burger flipping. It’s not going to work. They’re going to make us into a banana republic like Venezuela, where they used to say people fell out of trees into Cadillacs, and now they just all live in grinding poverty with toilet paper shortages. America is the land of opportunity, unless you actually attain the upper middle class or higher, in which case Liberals immediately claim you didn’t build that, and become hostile.
Instead of actually helping the poor by improving the economy through removing necessary obstacles to private industry, and trying to stem the exodus of jobs, they fixate on whether little old church ladies disagree with gay marriage, or who wants to make a bouquet of posies for whom. Micro aggressions. Trigger warnings. Meanwhile, their policies drive people into grinding poverty while they import floods of illegal aliens that drive up the competition for a meager job market. They seriously need to get their priorities in order.
Nick, I am not sure what anyone would be jealous of.
Lawyers have not had their businesses taken over by the government as yet.
KCF, As I’ve discussed, I have gotten to see the interplay between docs and barristers working med malpractice cases over the decades. Barristers are jealous of docs. That’s part of what is going on, not all, but part.
So, steve, I made a factual argument and backed it up with facts.
Your inevitable ad hominem response is unnecessary; I’ve already taken it into account.
For example,
My statement was not an ad hominem, but a fact.
See here: The Death Of Catholic Universities In America
KCFleiming: Thank you for the link. It doesn’t put a lot of color in education at a religious institution, but I didn’t notice anything in it that tends to reflect what you stated in your earlier post, to wit, “US Catholic universities aren’t religious and most decidedly are not Roman Catholic. . . . OTOH, most US Catholics aren’t Catholic.”
Where on earth did you come up with “most US Catholics aren’t Catholic” or is that your inference from the link you provided?
[By the way, this just came in over the wire:
GREEN BAY (The Borowitz Report)—Donald Trump, the Republican Presidential front-runner, touched off a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by suggesting that, if elected, he would build a wall inside the uterus. In proposing an addition to the uterus, a major female reproductive sex organ, Trump sought to draw a distinction between such a wall and the wall that the uterus already has, commonly referred to as the uterine wall.
“No, no, no, this would be a much better wall than that wall,” Trump said. “People are going to love this wall.”
As has been his custom on the campaign trail, Trump offered few details about his plan to build a wall inside the uterus, other than to say that he would make women pay for it.]
Have a gray day!
Once again, I have to agree with Prof Turley, and his comments are far better than any I could offer.
randyjet writes, “Once again, I have to agree with Prof Turley, and his comments are far better than any I could offer.”
Agreed. The blogging professor McAdams shouldn’t be restrained from non-criminal speech in any venue.
MM I hope that your list does not list Liberty U. They produce nothing but drones who cannot even think,much less perform their jobs well. You will be satisfied with their approach to “education”. I had an F/O who was not the sharpest tack in the box who was a proud grad of the place tell me the reason he voted for W Bush was the blow job in the Oval Office. I told him that I was unaware that Gore got one there too. There was silence after that from him. Four years of indoctrination produced a fool, and he realized it too.
Another BIG issue for any conservative student is the fear of grading retribution by the professor if they oppose their viewpoint. I personally know two conservative students who were given much lower grades than they deserved because the disagreed with PC thought.
The instructor said, “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.” If only she had said, “today, we will be limiting our focus to these (already listed) subjects.” By now this instructor should know not to employ universals. She should also have been much more restrained in her responses.
Even back at a state university in the bygone eras a professor could easily “suggest” the dropping of or transferring out the course. I also learned that a syllabus was not a contract when a chemistry prof spent the whole period ranting about the Vietnam war.
The difference between then and now is the light speed internet. I wonder if the subject prof would have written and run off copies and posted them on bulletin boards without more thought. That “send” key is one of the most dangerous pieces of the Internet.
There are appropriate slaps on the wrists for all involved. I also think that there is much more here than meets the eye.
These incidents are making the process of narrowing down choices for my kid’s college education so easy.
Stricken from the list so far:
U of Missouri
Yale
U of Illinois
Claremont McKenna College
Wesleyan College
Crafton Hills College (OK, this one wasn’t in the running in the first place)
Duke
Michigan
Any school that’s changed it’s mascot under politically correct pressure*
Syracuse
St. John’s
Hawaii
Dartmouth
Carthage College
Miami of Ohio
Eastern Washington
St. Bonaventure
Elon
Siena
Marquette (now on the list twice)
Seattle U
Louisiana-Monroe
Arkansas State
North Dakota
Bradley
Alcorn State
William & Mary
Adams State
Springfield College
SE Missouri State
Quinnipiac
Hopefully the list will be winnowed down to her local community college and state school by the time she’s ready!
*not a complete list
@Stevegroen
I do hope you can muster something besides an ad hominem response to arguments in court.
KCFleming writes,” @Stevegroen I do hope you can muster something besides an ad hominem response to arguments in court.”
This comes after you wrote, “US Catholic universities aren’t religious and most decidedly are not Roman Catholic. . . . OTOH, most US Catholics aren’t Catholic.”
I sure like how you lay a foundation for your arguments. Grape jelly is sturdier. I will say, though, that yours was a pleasant argument.
It appears that discrimination against conservatives is embraced by an increasingly fascist university system. Conform or be punished.
I support gay marriage, and I also support Free Speech. The student had a right to discuss his opinions, the class would benefit from being exposed to different opinions and the opportunity to rational debate, and the TA was utterly and completely wrong. The university compounded this mistake by blatantly discriminating against their conservative professor. In fact, they seemed to have no trouble at all with publicly censuring and disgracing their professor.
Students are getting threatened for merely imply non-Liberal ideas (see the Trump chalk story), conservative speakers lose speaking engagements, and professors cannot reach tenure, or may lose it, if they voice conservatives principles.
Indeed, Liberals are threatening the academic and professional careers of those they disagree with.
Campuses are supposed to be places where young people are exposed to myriad ideas, some of which they disagree with, and some they don’t. They have to learn how to defend their position, and rationally debate with each other, avoiding false logic such as emotional debates or ad hominem.
OFF TOPIC for Jonathan Turley:
Jonathan Turley:
Last fall, I attended a charity event in which many politicians from both sides of the isle were in attendance. It turned out that sitting next to my wife and myself was a State Supreme Judge and his wife.
After a few pleasantries and discussions between the wives about shared topics of interest, we arrived at the political arena. The Judge proclaimed he was a proud liberal and went out of his way several times to make sure everyone knew he was a Harvard Graduate.
When the talk hit upon Obama and his overreach via Executive action, I immediately stated that there is a list of over 400 potential Federal laws that Obama has broken via Executive action and many that were totally Un-Constitutional.
The Judge fired back claiming Obama had broken no laws at all, and not one Executive action was Un-Constitutional. He then implied I was woefully misinformed since I did not have a legal background. When he asked where I got my information, I explained that many websites have examined Obama’s actions in detail and conceded he broke the law many times.
He then proceeded to use the standard “stop listening to Fox News” and conservative BS. He further asked me to give him an example of what websites. I fired back “Jonathan Turley”. His big smile disappeared. His immediate response was “he is good”. He then shut up and changed the conversation to another topic.
The incident left me with a sick feeling in my stomach. Here was a State Supreme Court Judge, defending each and everything the Obama Administration has done, regardless of other legal opinions.
Someone in his position is supposed to be impartial, yet there he was. His partisan political agenda was more important that the rule of law. This example is why I have an enormous respect for you, Jonathan Turley, who is truly committed to arriving at the “Justice for All” regardless of the political agenda.