Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear case on Marquette professor's suspension

Marie Rohde wrote at the National Catholic Reporter.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon decide a case involving the effective firing of a Marquette University professor [John McAcams] who wrote in his personal blog [Marquette Warrior] about a confrontation between an undergraduate and a teaching assistant who refused to allow a classroom discussion of same-sex marriage that she considered homophobic."

Argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled for tomorrow, April 19th, beginning at 1:30pm.

"Lawyers and supporters of McAdams say the university violated his academic freedom and first amendment rights.

"Marquette and its supporters counter that academic freedom and free speech have nothing to do with McAdams' discipline. ... McAdams used the blog 'in order to expose her ([teaching assistant Cheryl] Abbate) to negative comments from readers of his blog' and then sent it to supporters, talk show hosts and other media outlets around the country.

"Lawyers for McAdams say he did not post Abbate's contact information but merely linked to her blog. He does not deny naming her."

The court's current term ends July 31st so opinion(s) in the case should be issued by then.

Marquette continues McAdams suspension, requires admitting guilt

Marquette University President Michael Lovell today issued a statement saying,

"After months of deliberations, the [Faculty Hearing C]ommittee 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."

Professor McAdams' lawyers issued a statement in response. It asserts,

"Today, the University ignored that its almost sixteen-month suspension of Dr. McAdams was improper."

It then goes on,

"While it followed the recommendation that he be suspended, it also imposed a requirement that, within two weeks, he admit his 'guilt.' If he refuses to do so, he will not be reinstated. Such a requirement of self-abasement and compelled speech was not recommended by the Faculty Hearing Committee.

"The Committee found that Marquette had improperly suspended Dr. McAdams in violation of his due process rights under the Faculty Statutes and disagreed with the University’s desire to terminate him. It did recommend that he be suspended for one to two semesters, with benefits, but without pay."

So in addition to saying Lovell's statement was misleading, this indicates the Committee said the University violated McAdams' rights, but Lovell is the one demanding an admission of wrongdoing.

(via Fox 6 News)

Update: Nico Perrino's report at Inside Higher Education adds this,

"McAdams’ lawyer told IHE that the apology and admission of guilt must come within two weeks or his client will lose his job. According to IHE, a spokesman for the university refused to answer questions about the university president’s role in demanding an apology."

Campus inquisition at Marquette, says The New Criterion

Marquette University's treatment of Professor John McAdams is the subject of the lead editorial in the latest issue of The New Criterion.

"Like most American institutions of higher education these days, Marquette is Janus-faced when it comes to free speech. Their public-relations, fund-raising face proclaims their commitment to academic freedom and an environment that 'prepares [students] for the world by asking them to think critically about it.' Tuition dollars and annual-fund checks safely docketed, the workaday, totalitarian face takes over. Only opinions that pass today’s politically correct test of orthodoxy are allowed. 'Thinking critically' means repudiating anything not on the approved list of PC attitudes."

In reading the editorial, and reflecting on the case, it struck me that Marquette has said both:
- that the problem with McAdams' blog post is that while he criticized a graduate student in the role of college classroom teacher, Marquette regards a graduate student instructor as a student first; and
- that other faculty have expressed the concern that McAdams would criticize them in a similar way.
That is, MU has indicated that it's crucial, and not crucial, that McAdams criticized a student rather than a faculty member.

While McAdams appears to have a good case, TNC's editors and I don't assume he's certain to prevail. They wonder if he'd stay after winning. I wonder if Marquette would do whatever it takes to keep him from returning, even if he wins.

It's also struck me that in this matter, there's no indication MU President Lovell took any steps to reconcile the parties. I likewise saw no such indication in the media reports of his handling of the dispute with the UWM student government when he was chancellor there. That matter is in litigation, as McAdams' matter might also turn out to be.

Lower Lovell

Our Archbishop of Milwaukee Facebook page reposts verbatim Marquette President James Lovell's statement on the University's announced effort to fire Professor John McAdams. Perhaps the ArchMil empathisizes with the University's approach to public relations.

Early on President Lovell says,

"Until all procedures required under university rules and policies are complete, we will not publicly disclose further details."

But this sounds like apophasis given that he later says,

"We must always remember that academic freedom must be grounded in integrity, be accurate at all times and show respect for others’ opinions. When these standards are not met, the power of tenure can abuse and silence our students – the very minds we are seeking to cultivate, grow and ultimately transform."

I thought this was about public criticism of a graduate student instructor's teaching, so why is it being spun as abusing a student?

And why is our Archdiocese seconding that characterization? In a different context, but not that long ago, it was pushing a narrow definition of abuse as a reason not to remove someone from his position.

As it stands, between them, a priest being unable to keep his hands to himself with grade school kids is not abuse, and not a firing offense, but a professor criticizing a graduate student instructor by name is.

No process due McAdams says Marquette

Karen Herzog reports in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Marquette professor John McAdams says he's facing termination.

"McAdams blogged that his attorney received a letter Friday from Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz, stating: 'We are commencing as of this date the procedures for revoking your tenure and dismissing you from the faculty.'"

Marquette has given the impression that this was its aim from the start. It's hard to imagine what substance there was to the 'review' is said it was conducting in the interim.

"Holz reportedly told McAdams: 'It is vital for our university and our profession that graduate student instructors learn their craft as teachers of sometimes challenging and difficult students. Great teachers develop over time; many benefit from experienced mentors who share hard-earned insights. Thus, graduate student instructors should expect appropriate and constructive feedback in order to improve their teaching skills.'"

"Thus"? That's a leap from saying that graduate student instructors benefit from mentoring, to implying that everyone on the faculty is a mentor to every graduate student instructor. And with both parties represented by counsel, why don't Holz's communications with McAdams ever sound like they've first been run past Marquette's attorneys?

Marquette President James Lovell, on the other hand, seems to telelgraph MU's litigation strategy in a Facebook post quoted in the article.

"'... Until all procedures required under university rules and policies are complete, we will not publicly disclose further details.'
[...]
"'The decisions here have everything to do with our Guiding Values and expectations of conduct toward each other and nothing to do with academic freedom, freedom of speech, or same-sex marriage...'"

As far as I can recall, this contiues Marquette's streak of not citing any specific provision of its rules and procedures. Its claim will be, it appears, that none apply.

P.S. Lisa Kaiser reported at the Shepherd Express that, allegedly as a result of then-Chancellor Lovell's actions, UWM Civil Rights Lawsuit Heads to Federal Court: Students say administration has taken control of student fees. I'm not commenting on that suit's legal merits, but you might note some parallels in the fact pattern.

Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.

She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, and for a while, Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

So far, this is the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.  [Exactly!]

But then things deteriorated.

continue at Marquette Warrior

Yes, continue to read this train wreck.  Catholic colleges like Marquette claim they can teach whatever they want in the name of "academic freedom."  Ironically, it turns out the actual intention of "academic freedom" is to simply redefine the dogmas and decree them without consideration.  Don't think.  All your brains are belong to us.

Image