Marquette Faculty Senate Mulling Ways to Silence Warrior Blogger

An e-mail from the Marquette Provost about a meeting of the Academic Senate sounds bland enough.

But it’s necessary to know some context to know what’s going on.

When Marquette lost its legal case against us, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed our contractual right to blog about things at Marquette (including misconduct at Marquette), the university released a truculent statement affirming it was right to try to fire us.

continue at Marquette Warrior

Marquette Paid PR Firm Big Bucks to Counter Negative Publicity Over Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger

We recently got an e-mail from an academic outlining an exchange he had with a public relations firm hired by Marquette to deal with the negative fallout from the university’s attempt to fire us. He explained:

FYI - see below. I received a very odd email from Marquette’s PR firm re: your case a few months ago. I had forgotten about it, but was reminded when I saw the recent court ruling. Anyway, I’m not sure why they contacted me, but thought you should know.

continue at Marquette Warrior

Really, go read this post.  This gives alumni an idea of how the administration will spend upwards of a million dollars to slander their own professors. 

!! Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Marquette professor John McAdams in free speech case, orders university to reinstate him

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that embattled Marquette University political science professor John McAdams was improperly suspended after he publicly criticized a graduate student by name on his politically conservative blog, leading to threats against her.

The court ordered the Jesuit university to immediately reinstate the professor and sent the case back to a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge to award damages, including back pay.

McAdams has been suspended without pay for the past seven semesters.

"The undisputed facts show that the University breached its contract with Dr. McAdams when it suspended him for engaging in activity protected by the contract's guarantee of academic freedom," said the opinion written by Justice Daniel Kelly.

The state's high court ordered Marquette to "immediately reinstate Dr. McAdams with unimpaired rank, tenure, compensation, and benefits."

continue at JS

We all owe McAdams a debt of gratitude.  Had he not been willing to suffer through this whole thing, anyone not compliant with the latest liberal hysteria would have to continually suffer through another incoherent round of career punishment and virtue signaling. 

I think Lovell deep down probably knew Marquette would lose the case, but at least he showed he's willing to punish the politically incorrect.  Will it change a rotten culture at Marquette?  Unlikely, but it can't hurt.  Hopefully this decision will help protect other professors whom are attacked for their political or religious beliefs. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will issue their decision in McAdams v. Marquette on Friday morning

BREAKING: The Wisconsin Supreme Court will issue their decision in McAdams v. Marquette on Friday morning. #SCOWIS #FreeSpeech pic.twitter.com/IC0fn41gwx

— WILL (@WILawLiberty) July 3, 2018

Grab your popcorn!

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.

Newspapers compelled to offer corrections after Marquette offers erroneous information in McAdams case

It just appeared on the Washington Times website (and many other places, doubtless): a story about our suit against Marquette University from the Associated Press.

As has happened before, the reporter (Ivan Moreno) appears to have accepted at face value claims made by Marquette, and pretty much blown off statements from our lawyer (Rick Esenberg) whom Moreno talked to, but apparently paid little attention to.

...

In fact, Abbate received no threats, as she admitted on her personal blog.  [Whoops!]

full post at Marquette Warrior

5 Big, Fat Lies Free Speech Opponents Love

4. Speakers Are Responsible for Listeners’ Actions

What happens if some irresponsible speaker says something awful and people react by attacking or harassing the target of the speech? We saw an example of this in the case of professor John McAdams, who was fired from Marquette University for criticizing a graduate student instructor who told a student anti-gay-marriage sentiments could not be spoken of in class.

McAdams wrote a blog post defending the student’s right to express his beliefs. As a result, some people attacked the instructor, some with threats. So is McAdams responsible for every idiot who makes a threat based on a clear example of shutting down conservative speech? Is Black Lives Matter responsible for NewYork police officers killed by a lunatic apparently motivated by their rhetoric? No and No.

full article at The Federalist

Why Are Businesses Intervening in a Wisconsin Academic Freedom Case?

The Trump era, if nothing else, has shown that ideological alignments can be fluid and inconsistent. So fiscal conservatives can find themselves backing massive deficits, while evangelicals hand out mulligans for presidential payoffs to porn stars. But even by those fluctuating standards, the decision by some business groups to align themselves with academia's speech police is jarring.

Some background:

Back in 2014, Marquette University suspended a tenured professor, John McAdams, for writing a blog post. Since then, they have effectively fired him. He has sued and his appeal, arguably one of the most important academic freedom cases in the country, is now pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Arguments are scheduled for April 19.

continue at The Weekly Standard

Briefs filed for arguments in McAdams case

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in former Marquette professor John McAdams’ appeal against the university, amicus briefs defending both sides have begun to stack up.

The case has received attention since its beginning in 2014. Its recognition has continued due to the significant number of amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs being filed by various groups and individuals in support of either McAdams or the university.

In 2014, McAdams was suspended from his teaching position after naming a graduate student instructor in a blog post who had not allowed a student to discuss his same-sex marriage view in class. McAdams filed a suit against Marquette claiming that the university violated the academic freedom clause in his contract.

continue at Marquette Wire

Federalist: 10 Crazy Things Inside The Lawsuit Against Marquette For Firing Professor Over Free Speech

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear John McAdams’ lawsuit against Marquette University over the conservative faculty member’s suspension for defending a student.

...

McAdams took Marquette to court, but a trial court judge tossed his case last June. McAdams immediately appealed. While typically an intermediate court would review the case, given its importance, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear McAdams’ appeal directly. This news brought renewed criticism over the tenured professor’s “suspension,” with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board chastising Marquette and concluding: “How much better we’d all be if Marquette would acknowledge its mistake and give the professor his job back.”

Marquette President Michael R. Lovell defended McAdams’ “suspension” in a letter WSJ published a few days later. There, Lovell claimed McAdams’ “suspension” was justified because he “inflicted a public and personal internet attack on our student.” In this attempt to save face, Lovell quoted the Milwaukee County judge’s opinion that concluded “academic freedom does not mean that a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.”

Criticism of Marquette is justified, however, in the additional details buried in the court record. Here are ten such tidbits.

continue at The Federalist

Very good.

John McAdams case against Marquette University over academic freedom goes to Wis Supreme Court

Professor John McAdams’ lawsuit to get his job back at Marquette University got a boost Monday when the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

“We are pleased that the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case on behalf of John McAdams,” said Rick Esenberg, President and General Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL). “It is very important to have clarification on this important issue and I’m glad that John will have his day in court sooner than later.”

Esenberg and WILL said they asked the court to take the case because, “there is no binding precedent on the question of how far academic freedom extends.”

“A ruling from the court will also provide a standard for the rights of professors at UW System schools and private universities and colleges that also promise their faculty academic freedom,” according to a WILL press release.

continue at Right Wisconsin

Big news!

Wall Street Journal: A Jesuit School Gets Dogmatic - Is Marquette’s promise of academic freedom worth anything?

Marquette is a Jesuit university in Milwaukee. Which is appropriate, because jesuitical is the word that fits its explanation for firing a tenured political science professor who defended a student who was badly treated by an intolerant graduate instructor.

The sacked professor is John McAdams, who in 2014 wrote a blog post criticizing by name Cheryl Abbate, who taught a course on ethics. Ms. Abbate had told a student he could not express his disagreement with same-sex marriage in her ethics class because it was “homophobic” and on that issue there could be no debate.

In his post on the incident, Mr. McAdams made no judgment on same-sex marriage. But he noted that liberals are inclined to deem views they disagree with as offensive and then use that to shut down debate. The story went national.

Marquette officials took action—against Mr. McAdams. He was blamed for the hate mail that Ms. Abbate received after he named her, even though there’s no evidence he was part of any of it.

continue at Wall Street Journal

Cardinal Newman Society interviews John McAdams over ongoing legal battle wth Marquette U

The Newman Society: What would you say is the state of Marquette’s Catholic identity?

McAdams: It’s little more than a marketing ploy.

You can find online the religious views of freshmen coming in. I think it’s still the case that a majority are Catholic, although not all of them.

There’s nothing wrong with a non-Catholic attending a Catholic university, but that’s relevant because the average freshman coming in is going to have more Catholics as cohorts than they would at a state-run university today. On the other hand, not all Catholics are particularly serious Catholics, just as not all Protestants are particularly serious Protestants.

But if you look at the institution itself, anytime secular political correctness conflicts with Catholic teaching, they go with secular political correctness. [Bingo]

…The bureaucracy is shot through with political correctness. There are tons of bureaucrats that have “multicultural” or “diversity” or “inclusion” in their titles, and they’re all committed to bringing politically correct speakers to campus, punishing people for politically incorrect speech.

full interview at Cardinal Newman Society

Judges Get ‘Borked’ and Now Professors Will Get ‘McAdamsed’

The ongoing battle between the authoritarian administration at Marquette University and the tenured political-science professor it wants to get rid of because of things he wrote has hit a Wisconsin court. The judge recently granted Marquette’s motion to dismiss, siding with the university’s argument that it gave Professor John McAdams “fair procedures” and therefore the court should defer to its decision that tenure and academic freedom notwithstanding, McAdams must be punished.

I cover the story’s background and the court’s ruling in today’s Martin Center article. 

If the decision stands (and it will be appealed), it would open up a new avenue for zealous leftists to attack faculty members they don’t like. Just find writings that offend some protected group (in this case, a young female teaching assistant who brushed off a student who asked why the class would not discuss gay marriage, informing him that the question was settled and to bring it up would be harmful to gay students), then begin procedures to strip the malignant professor of tenure and employment. 

“Watch what you say” becomes the guiding principle at colleges and universities where the president cares more about keeping the Left happy than with defending free speech.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447581/martin-center-article-mcadams-v-marquette-case

Lower court judge rules against John McAdams in Marquette academic freedom case

May 4, 2017 – Milwaukee, WI – In a 33-page ruling today, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David Hansher found that Marquette University had the legal right to terminate tenured political science professor, Dr. John McAdams. The judge treated the Marquette committee that sat in judgment of McAdams as the equivalent of a neutral, third-party arbitrator, adopting its reasoning and conclusions wholesale.  [Bizarre considering there's absolutely no way they could reasonably be considered such, and the whole point the case is in court is so the court can provide third-party arbitration]  McAdams has already vowed to appeal the ruling.

WILL full statement

also JS

#FightThePower

JS: Lawyers argue suspended McAdams suit against Marquette

The attorney for a suspended Marquette University professor argued Thursday that dismissing his lawsuit against the university would mean academic freedom is illusory.

"Whatever the limits of academic freedom are, they haven't been transgressed here," said Rick Esenberg, whose conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty represents John McAdams.

Last year, McAdams sued Marquette, claiming his two-semester suspension without pay for critically blogging about a graduate instructor in another department was a breach of his contract. After the 2014 post got traction on social media, people flooded the instructor with profane, offensive, threatening messages. She later transferred to another university.

On Thursday, attorneys for both sides were arguing the respective motions to be granted summary judgments in their favor before trial. The 90-minute session drew a packed gallery of spectators.

continue at JS

I wonder how much Marquette has spent on legal fees thus far....  $500k?  $1Mil??  More???  The case has been going on for two years now.  Maybe this was how they expected to punish McAdams all along, even if they knew they would likely lose in court at least they could drag him through the mud for a couple years anyway.

When McAdams wins, it would be fitting that Lovell has to issue him a public apology.

Watchdog: As classes begin at Marquette University, McAdams’ liberty lawsuit plods along

John McAdams’ academic freedom fight has now entered the discovery stage.

The Marquette University political science professor remains suspended without pay after refusing to apologize for the “transgression” of free speech.

Meanwhile, McAdams’ lawsuit alleging breach of contract and that the university violated his right to academic freedom drags on, headed for a Feb. 2 court date.

“We are in discovery right now. They have demanded a lot of stuff from me, including a lot of old emails,” McAdams told Wisconsin Watchdog on the Jay Weber Show, on NewsTalk 1130 WISN.

“We are asking for summary judgment, asking the judge to say Marquette was wrong and McAdams was right. If that happens, that will leave open the issue of how much of a settlement or judgment I get,” he said. “There would be a jury trial in mid-June to decide how much money I get. Marquette could settle rather than allowing it to go to trial.”

continue at Wisconsin Watchdog (posted a month ago, I am behind)

Are Universities Sidestepping Faculty Due Process in Response to Social Media Crises?

In the social media age, one bad viral incident can outweigh an entire career. Across the country, a series of professor and faculty firings paint a troubling portrait of the way university administrators and trustees view the tradeoffs between employee due process and shielding their institution from the public relations hits that come with high-profile viral incidents.

Linda Katehi, chancellor of the University of California at Davis was removed from her position last month following allegations that she hired an Internet consulting firm to help scrub and minimize web postings about an infamous pepper spray incident at the university. In March, Sujit Choudhry, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, was placed on indefinite leave and eventually resigned after details of a sexual harassment lawsuit became public. Melissa Click, former associate professor at the University of Missouri, was fired after being captured on video calling for “muscle” to forcibly remove student journalists from filming protestors. John McAdams, a political science professor at Marquette University, was suspended without pay in 2014 for writing a post on his personal blog criticizing a fellow Marquette teaching assistant caught on tape telling a student that opposition to same-sex marriage was not permitted in her classroom. McAdams contends he has been fired, but the university has stated he remains under suspension throughout the 2016 fall semester.

While each case has its own wrinkles, these incidents all follow a common trend: the faculty members in question were all fired or suspended after their alleged transgressions “went viral” and captured the attention of the outside world. Another commonality is that many of the fired are accusing university administrators of ignoring or sidestepping established faculty due process procedures in order to speed up the termination process or avoid further negative public relations. Choudhry and McAdams are suing their former employers for denying them due process, while Click has stated her intention to do the same. Choudhry filed an official grievance in April with the UC Privilege and Tenure Committee over his dismissal.

continue at Good Call

Journal-Sentinel’s Bizarre “Bullying” Attack on Warrior Blogger

It was a screaming headline: “MU report suggests pattern of bullying by suspended McAdams.”

Written by education reporter Karen Herzog, it claims to be based on the Report of the Faculty Hearing Committee, which heard our case last September. Unfortunately, there are two massive problem with the story.

In the first place, Herzog has taken the claims of the Faculty Hearing Committee absolutely at face value, and never asked us or our lawyers for our side of the story.

In the second place, she mischaracterizes the Report. It nowhere in the 123 pages ever claims we were responsible for bullying anybody. [Whoops!]  So where did Herzog get that? Our guess is that it came either from leftist faculty at Marquette, or from Marquette administrators who have been flailing around in a sea of bad publicity, and are desperately trying to discredit us.

continue at Marquette Warrior

If you are fed up with these liberal elite shaming methods, consider supporting Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.  I just did.

MarquetteWire: Student at heart of McAdams controversy shares their story - Marquette releases Committee report

Here's the account of what happened that fateful October morning.

The class incident: Fall 2014

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.

And 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.

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.

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.

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.