Marquette suspended [John] McAdams after he wrote a blog attacking Cheryl Abbate, a graduate student and philosophy instructor, for telling students that everybody agrees with gay rights, and there was no reason to discuss it.McAdams was represented by Rick Esenberg, of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty President, who based his argument on academic freedom: "If academic freedom means anything at all, it has to mean that he can't be fired for writing that blog post." McAdams told what was apparently an accurate story and did not threaten Abbate. You can see that Marquette's lawyer is forced to talk about how the blog post could inspire others to threaten Abbate.
Abbate was confronted after class by a student who disagreed, and in a conversation he recorded, Abbate said the student didn't have a right to make homophobic comments in her class. The student then shared the recording with McAdams, who blogged about the exchange.
McAdams included a clickable link to her contact information and personal website, and Abbate began receiving negative, threatening emails. She has since left the university.
"This is not a case about free speech, it's about safety," Marquette attorney Ralph Weber told reporters after arguments. "You don't paint a target on the back of a student — put her out in front of a hostile audience so that she can receive vile and horrific threats — and claim that that is somehow consistent with your obligations as a professional."
After the argument, McAdams said: "Well, three justices completely savaged Marquette's lawyer... However, I need more than three votes." And McAdams says he wants to return to teaching at Marquette: "Because while I have essentially zero respect for the people who are running the place, the students are pretty good." he said.
Marquette's attorney noted that McAdams was suspended by a unanimous vote of seven of his peers on the Marquette faculty. McAdams said a process like that would always work against conservatives like him because most professors are liberal.
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
Campus Bullying Gone Wild. The EDU Establishment has morphed into a cadre of Facist Brown Shirts. I guess it's not that easy to mind control Americans who still remember the days of free speech. Perhaps legalizing Marijuana will help shut them up. If not, just disappear them.
The clever lawyers for Marquette were smart enough to know that the case couldn't be about his speech, so they made it about conduct. More specifically, identifying the snowflake teacher by link. And then vicariously attributing the whacked out emails the philosophy professor got from unknown third parties to McAdams.
I really resent how Marquette turned the Jesuit ideal of "caring for the person" on its head. Jesuitical use of that concept in this case.
A Jesuit school should allow for free academic debate and here Marquette fired a prof for, in essence, debating the morality of gay marriage.
Ignatius is spinning in his grave.
The whole case is a disgrace.
I like that he was trying to protect a student from a power-made T.A., but his method of doing so makes him look like a power-mad prof beating up a T.A.
MMM!
I would just LOVE to jump into the tribal 'rah rah' support of a fellow Conservative.
I am VERY leery of the man doxing a student teacher. She should have been censored, corrected and perhaps even removed. She had no right to stifle free speech on campus and I find her a hateful, narrow minded little Prog.
That being said...
HE did dox her. This is worse than what Rhada the Hutt did, who simply said mean things.
And I find it a bit self serving to wrap himself in the flag of conservatism to defend very sketchy actions.
So, Ms. Althouse, I am far more curious on your thoughts since you are normally a zero tolerance for violating tenure type of woman.
I am not fighting for this guy except in so far as any LIBERAL professor who does this MUST be treated the exact same way.
And if this professor can show even a single instance of such a double standard, I will fight for him to the end and hope that, barring being rehired, he sues the gold teeth filings from the President of the University's back teeth.
The campus will fade. It is past time the university system was replaced.
Everything McAdams wrote and said was true. Tell me, Professor Althouse, is that so unusual among college professors teaching in Wisconsin?
I thought the whole point of "Academic Freedom" was to say unpopular things.
Otherwise, why is it needed?
The "its a safety issue" is a clever plea for censorship.
I suppose all the liberals justices will vote as a bloc AGAINST him.
It is not about him stating falsehoods. It is that he put that link in the blog.
THAT, to me, is the only 'over the line' thing he did. But he DID cross that line.
Even a picture and her name would have been okay. If you say something, you need to own it.
But tacitly encouraging people to complain about her, instead of complaining to her supervisor, is not cricket.
For example, I did write a letter to the President of Fresno (and they probably had a filter dump it). Not Rhada the Hutt, telling her how loathesome a person she is.
That is the proper way to do things. This guy in tone sounds like a bit of a jerk...and I have a hard time defending jerks.
Academic freedom is not what it used to be. Even in the turbulent 60's and early 70's, we had professors who were quite outspoken on both sides of the political divide. Angela Davis was allowed to freely preach revolution and Communism while conservative professors felt free to defend the system. Governor Reagan kept the universities in CA open when radicals attempted to close them. I don't recall any professors being fired for ideological reasons.
This is exactly why were are going to get that morbidly obese piece of shit Jarrar fired.
No quarter, no mercy, total war. The left will be held to their own rules.
I agree with FIDO that the Professor shouldn't have revealed the name of the student teacher like that. He could've just blogged the story and omitted the link and name. He could have personally confronted the TA about it. He probably still have ended up being fired over it, though, which is very sad.
Ms. Althouse seems far less fervent in defending THIS guy as opposed to Rhada the Hutt.
So is tenure sacrosanct or not? She is a big girl who is happy to scream and berate students.
How is being on the other side of that power dynamic any different?
Still not fighting for him but popping some corn and watching Ms. Althouse keenly to see where tenure ends (at an R perhaps?)
I agree with FIDO. Blogging about the incident in general terms would have been absolutely fine. Describing it in a way that didn’t name names, but that people wound up being able to figure out who she was would be at least somewhat defensible. But it seems to me that professors are at least somewhat obligated not to directly reveal information about students. Perhaps the fact that she was a TA changes things a little, but I don’t think it’s that much.
This doesn’t change the fact, of course, that universities in general have a big problem with double standards. This just isn’t a good example.
“The campus will fade. It is past time the university system was replaced.”
Well this Marquette campus has been around since 1881 and isn’t going anywhere, it’ll outlive you.
We’ve had doxxing here on these comments threads in the past. It wasnt tolerated. Doxxing isn’t being tolerated at Marquette either, good for them.
Nonapod,
I really don't even care about the name. A troll is very unlikely to patrol campus to actually LOOK for her and physically confront her.
And if the troll wants to take the small step to look up her campus email, well, that is not his responsibility.
It is the LINK that is my big peeve. It is tacit encouragement to make her life miserable...which she kind of deserves but we can't squack if it happens to us (and it does)
So I hope he finds an example of a Lefty being let off the hook so he can rub their hypocrisy in their faces.
The TA was a bully, who thought she could do her dirty work in secret, just like Harvey Weinstein. Now the light of publicity has been shone on her. That's great. Bullying and abuse of power should not be kept hidden or dealt with privately.
But putting a target on the back of Masterpiece cake bakers, fine n dandy. Ousting Brendan Eich from Mozilla, courageous. Not confirming Pompeo ... next on the docket. Because Love is Love.
I don’t understand why this wasn’t handled in private discussion or in a committee to deal with these isssues. Faculty do not ha be the freedom to harrass and intimidate TAs although some may try.
Instead of political congruence ("="), they should have supported equal rights. In this case, the libertarians were right, and their liberal counterparts were wrong.
That said, the individual press has followed the precedents set by the mainstream and "independent" press, civil rights organizations, and even the government, as recent as the last administration. The academic system has normalized its own set of Pro-Choice policies, that preclude or complicate reconciliation of different interests, perspective, and claims/assertions, where emotional appeals (e.g. "transphobic/homophobic") are legal evidence.
The outrage here is a frigging dopey spat gets one party suspended [because he didn't evoke love for the gayz] and then the spat has to be taken up by the state Supreme Court.
And I bet nine out of ten people don't even know what doxxing means.
The Jesuits are a Cult like the Jedi and Sith (or the GOP and Dems).
Wealthy schools run by silly SJWs. Not worth the cost of tuition.
Because Love is Love
Love lost on two counts. First, politic congruence ("=") is exclusive. If we are to depart from normalization/promotion of couple's marriage, then the libertarian solution: unions for all, including couplets, etc., would have been a reconcilable (i.e. non-Pro-Choice) solution. #NoJudgment, or something. And, of course, #HateLovesAbortion, a wicked solution.
Why wasn’t the TA fired for what she said to the student?
Blogger Achilles said...
The campus will fade. It is past time the university system was replaced.
In spite of Inga's assurances, I think online colleges will replace the brick and mortar types in the next 20 years or so.
One reason is cost. A good professor can make a DVD or an audio course, like those I listen to in the car. The dullards will find the competition tough.
Second, the nonsense about research in Humanities will be seen as the useless gobbldygook it is. Steve Hayward, over at Powerline, has a regular feature of the most ridiculous academic paper of the week.
Students cannot afford to pay the administrators and affirmative action hires on student loans. The coming mass default will require a reform , probably in the form of limiting loans to STEM courses and premed and the like.
I see these little "Liberal Arts" colleges going away in spite of hundreds of years of history, Sweetbriar college is gone.
Sweetbriar is on life support, but that will only last a year or two.
On March 3, 2015, Sweet Briar's board of directors announced that the college would be closing at the end of the summer session, citing "insurmountable financial challenges".[8] In response, a group of concerned alumnae and friends of the college formed a nonprofit organization, Saving Sweet Briar, to reverse the board's decision.[9] Saving Sweet Briar, students, parents and alumnae, faculty and staff, and the local Commonwealth Attorney all filed lawsuits to enjoin the closing, one of which reached the Virginia Supreme Court.[10] On June 20, 2015, the Virginia Attorney General announced a mediation agreement to keep Sweet Briar College open.[11][12] After replacing the board and president, the college rescinded the closing announcement.[13]
They would be smarter to set up a MOOC and figure out how to grant degrees.
A breach of contract case with two seemingly contradictory applicable provisions, where intent of the parties is an open question, was disposed of on summary judgment? Seems like an error. It should have gone to a jury.
I don’t know if you were referring to Marquette as a little “Liberal Arts” college, in case you were, let me disabuse you of that notion.
“I see these little "Liberal Arts" colleges going away in spite of hundreds of years of history, Sweetbriar college is gone.”
——————————
“Marquette is organized into 11 schools and colleges at its main Milwaukee campus, offering programs in the liberal arts, business, communications, education, engineering, law and various health sciences disciplines.[7] The university also administers classes in suburbs around the Milwaukee area and in Washington, DC. While most students are pursuing undergraduate degrees, the university has over 50 doctorial, a law school, a dental school (only one in the state), master's degree programs and 37 graduate certificate programs.[7] The university's varsity athletic teams, known as the Golden Eagles, are members of the Big East Conference and compete in the NCAA's Division I in all sports.[4] In 2014, U.S. News & World Report ranked Marquette 75th among national universities. Forbes ranked Marquette 87th among American research universities in 2013.[2]”
Of course, doxxing is fine when CNN does it. Right Inga?
Marquette is a private university, not a state school, so I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. So what is the basis of the claim before the court?
"Wealthy schools run by silly SJWs. Not worth the cost of tuition."
It does sound like that Ethics class was completely bogus.
“The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small”
― Henry Kissinger
. . . . classic reference
The Professor was the TA's supervisor. Doxxing one's employee is beyond the pale.
The most objectionable thing about college is that the professor has a captive audience and swings their authority like an truncheon.
Now, when it comes to asset management, the rules of evidence, or how to safely spilt an infinitive, this is good and necessary.
However, it strays to their personal opinions, as that insufferable TA showed us. That is not education, that is indoctrination.
And since it is not a consensual indoctrination (patriotism, love of country, rule of law, respect for the Bill of Rights), I oppose it.
So while I applaud this professor pushing back on such little Eichman's trying to swing their truncheons, he did Conservatives few favors here.
Doxxing one's employee is beyond the pale.
Is there any time that doxing is NOT beyond the pale or just when your fellow travelers get hit?
However, it strays to their personal opinions, as that insufferable TA showed us. That is not education, that is indoctrination.
My youngest daughter, when she was at U of Arizona, had an English Composition TA who spent the entire hour of "finals review" ranting about how Ronald Reagan was just an actor who recited lines written for him by others. That was about ten years ago. Also, her '"US History Since 1877" class study guide described "The Silent Majority" as "White People who refused to accept the 1964 Civil Rights Act." No mention of Vietnam or Nixon.
Doxxing one's employee is beyond the pale.
So "doxxing" now means linking to someone's public website, where they include their own information?
Mark said...
The Professor was the TA's supervisor. Doxxing one's employee is beyond the pale.
He was not. He was not in the same department, and probably not in the same college within the university ( I have not nailed that down, but the complaint against him noted that he had failed to contact anyone in the College of Arts and Sciences to get their perspective, so it is a safe bet that he was not in that college. )
Wikipedia:
""Doxing" is a neologism that has evolved over its brief history. It comes from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation "docs" (for "documents") and refers to "compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on someone." Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain. The term dox derives from the slang "dropping dox," which, according to Wired writer Mat Honan, was "an old-school revenge tactic that emerged from hacker culture in 1990s." Hackers operating outside the law in that era used the breach of an opponent's anonymity as a means to expose opponents to harassment or legal repercussions. Consequently, doxing often comes with a negative connotation, because it can be a vehicle for revenge via the violation of privacy."
I don't think the word "dox" is appropriate here. If anyone thinks it is, explain. Otherwise, stop using that word in place of real argument. It doesn't do the work you're trying to make it seem like it does. That's deceptive. Stop.
"So, Ms. Althouse, I am far more curious on your thoughts since you are normally a zero tolerance for violating tenure type of woman"
Not when it comes to the gays.
Mark the Helpless: "The Professor was the TA's supervisor."
So many lies, so little time.
Mark: "Doxxing one's employee is beyond the pale."
You are not going to like the new rules you've foisted on everyone else foisted on you.
"Marquette is a private university, not a state school, so I don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. So what is the basis of the claim before the court?"
I haven't looked at the pleadings, but assume it's a contractual theory.
Ms. Althouse.
While he only gave out a link to her public email, and did not reveal tons of personal information besides her picture and name, I can only speak to what I see as his intent: to have a lot of people contact her and 'disagree'.
Now, having a little totalitarian driven out of campus is never a bad thing, but the more likely target of such actions is the Right.
So a good news/bad news thing.
I can't bitch about encouraging such harassment for my side if I don't fight it happening for others.
Unlike a Leftist, I like consistency.
"I don't think the word "dox" is appropriate here. If anyone thinks it is, explain."
The term is often used for revealing someone's address and private information or for revealing the true name of someone who uses a pseudonym.
In this case, the TA was not anonymous but the use of the email must be what is being called doxing. I think it is weakly related but I suspect anyone could have found the email by using her name. If it was confidential, then the term would be appropriate. Sometimes faculty email address can be hard to find.
Ann Althouse said...
"I don't think the word "dox" is appropriate here. If anyone thinks it is, explain. Otherwise, stop using that word in place of real argument. It doesn't do the work you're trying to make it seem like it does. That's deceptive. Stop."
As best I can make out, he published a link to a blog. There is no information available at that link now, but it is not clear what it originally displayed.
The reason people use that word is because "dox" makes the act of referring to another person sound hostile and damaging. The Evil Eye. We won't know whether it works like the Left wants it to until the court rules. But it certainly sounds like it has been fairly effective thus far. "That's deceptive. Stop." doesn't do the work you're trying to make it seem like it does.
Sorry, but if you don't like being called out as a fascist, then don't act like one. In higher education, professors and teachers wield far too much authority to punish students because they dislike their (mostly conservative) views. It happens all the time. Publicizing these instances should help stop or limit such situations. Regardless, it's newsworthy.
And we all know that if a conservative TA told a student that making pro-gay arguments in class was off-limits because everyone agrees they're all a bunch of sexual deviants and it's not worth discussing, that the TA would be fired, the tenured professor who publicized it would be honored as a hero and the student body would be forced into another diversity seminar.
McAdams included a clickable link to her contact information and personal website,
I think he linked to her blog which discussed the matter and which she had placed (on another page) her contact information. The misinformation makes it seem like he directly linked to her name to incite other people to harass her.
But tacitly encouraging people to complain about her, instead of complaining to her supervisor, is not cricket.
So for example this conclusion is wrong. He did not encourage anyone to complain about her, he linked to her own summary of the events. This is typical in blogging so people can see the other side of the story. Contrary to this conclusion not linking to her blog is a sign of ill intent.
I'll give you a case of explicit doxing in the extreme. Omaha resident John Higgins is a major college basketball referee. Kentucky fans and the head coach didn't like his calls in last year's NCAA tournament. I watched the game in real time and thought it wasn't a badly called game at all. John is a friend but he grades out as one of the best refs in the game.
So a sports talk radio show in KY starts complaining about him. Videos on the web. Loons start calling his business and his unlisted home number. Facebook and Google ratings through the floor. The police have to patrol his home and business. This went on for days and days. The radio guy said (wink, nod) "we aren't telling people to do this."
Higgins sued the radio company in federal court. Venue now in KY. Interesting and close case but I think Higgins wins.
Abbate argues that abortion after 8 weeks is morally indefensible based on the animal rights activist definition of sentience. I wonder if she allows pro-abortion students to offer their opinions in class.
"One key term that Abbate continuously emphasized throughout the article was the need for moral consistency. Applying basic moral principles to the topic of animal rights makes it more critical for the “doer” or individual to understand the consequences of his/her opinions on the abortion discussion. The “morally significant act or omission is not the sexual intercourse, but rather, the morally significant omission is the choice to not abort the fetus in the first eight weeks gestation (Abbate 16). If one is to support animal rights in the sense that the individual wants to protect the interests of the animal because of its sentience, then the same moral value should be placed on protecting the interests of a sentient fetus."
FIDO,
Marquess of Queensbury rules, eh?
And how do you suppose the left *succeeded* in its long march through the institutions? No thanks, it's time for a little Alinskey back at them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा