The class incident: Fall 2014And this is where "Marquette Values" comes in, apparently they have trained their student teachers in this matter. The university has never clarified(correct me if I'm wrong) whether class discussion on controversial topics like gay marriage is permitted. In this case it certainly wasn't.
A student, who will remain anonymous, disagreed with former teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate during her Theory of Ethics philosophy class Oct. 28, 2014. The class was discussing philosopher John Rawls’ Liberty Principle, which says every person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
As part of the discussion, the student said class members contributed to a list of modern-day social issues and Abbate wrote that list on the board. The intent was for the class to discuss each of the issues written down. Once she was done with the list, the student said Abbate erased gay marriage from it because no one disagrees with gay marriage.
Abbate said the student didn’t “have the right, especially (in an ethics class) to make homophobic comments or racist comments.” [meaning that disagreeing with civil marriage laws was homophobic (assuming she meant the thought came from some debased emotion and could not be reasoned rationally - she would in fact never find out having engaged in "a tactic typical among liberals.")]read the whole thing at Marquette Wire
The incident happened 9 months before the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling which established a new Right to Marry at a federal level which has never existed previously. That is to say that student-teacher Abbate wouldn't even discuss current law and why it should be changed.
Marquette has never said if Abbate was corrected for her behavior. To read between the lines a bit, it would seem this is a common practice at Marquette, each instructor being their own classroom Leviathan. We've seen no correction given and no policy set forward that allows students to discuss issues deemed controversial.
McAdams said he reached out to Abbate via email nine hours before publishing the blog to tell her what he was doing. She did not respond to him.If Abbate didn't want him to publish the story, why didn't she just ask him not to?
Marquette is desperate to tie this to a teacher "harassing"(what he actually said seemed like a pretty light observation) a "student" (who's role at said time was in fact not a student as she was teaching a class, and authoritatively as well). Many(most?) faculty hate McAdams and wanted him fired long before this incident ever came to light. It sure smells like settling old grudges from here.
Oh yes, and news from Marquette today:
Marquette has now released the Report of the Faculty Hearing Committee that reviewed our case. Interestingly, they did it without our permission, in spite of insisting for months that they could not do it without our permission.I want to read it and post on that later. You can read what McAdams comments and the statement by Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty but let us conclude with one crystal clear insight on Lovell's still puzzling amendment to the committee recommendation.
[McAdams] That said, the Report may be a clumsy compromise between committee members who wanted us fired (which is what the University was demanding) and members who were willing to stand up for academic freedom. Given pressures for unanimity, both groups may have had to compromise on a one to two semester unpaid suspension.Oops. I just don't get how Marquette so immensely bungles this situation. Was the apology demand just Lovell's way of sticking it to McAdams? Did he think no one would notice? Amazing.
The Report makes clear, however, that Lovell was being flatly dishonest in implying that his demand for an abject apology followed the committee’s recommendation. There is nothing whatsoever about any apology in the Report.
No comments:
Post a Comment