Let's consider a hypothetical situation.
Professor Jones, who has tenure, learns that a graduate student in a different department has conducted a class in a manner he finds objectionable. So Jones writes a blog post in which he attacks the graduate student by name. He uses incendiary rhetoric he could reasonably know would lead to threats, harassment and intimidation directed at the student. In describing what transpired, he makes several errors of fact that are defamatory toward the people being discussed. It is later revealed that he has done this before. That is, he has attacked students by name in incendiary ways, and has been specifically asked to stop doing that.
Is this conduct sufficiently egregious for the university to consider breaking tenure? If the university decides the answer is yes, would this constitute an attack on Jones's academic freedom?
I'm a bit ambivalent on the first question. Jones is plainly an unprofessional asshole, but breaking tenure over an obnoxious blog post is probably an overreaction. But I'm quite certain that the answer to the second question is no. Academic freedom is not a blanket license to be an unprofessional asshole.
As you might have guessed, this situation is not entirely hypothetical. It's essentially playing out at Marquette University right now. From Slate:
In November, [John] McAdams, an associate professor of political science, wrote a blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. His account was based on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time in class one day on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed `offensive' and need to be shut up.”
Abbate said McAdams had distorted her actions—and that she wasn't trying to shut down an argument she disagreed with but simply had wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls' equal liberty principle. But conservative blogs spread McAdams' take on the situation—and she found herself receiving a flood of hateful email messages, some of them threatening.
For additional context and links, see the accounts in Inside Higher Education, and The Atlantic.
From what I have been able to glean from the accounts I have read, Abbate did nothing wrong in the class itself. The discussion in class had nothing to do with gay marriage per se. The question was rather how John Rawls' principles would apply to gay marriage. She was keeping the conversation on track, not shutting down viewpoints she disliked.
Where she went overboard was in her later conversation with the student. This conversation was surreptitiously recorded:
Student: 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: Ok, 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?
Student: No, I don't.
Abbate: And don't you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?
Student: If I choose to challenge this, it's my right as an American citizen.
Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don't have a right in this class, as ... especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments ...
Student: Homophobic comments? They're not. I'm not saying that gays, that one guy can't like another girl or something like that. Or, one guy can't like another guy.
The full transcript can be found at the Atlantic link above.
Some of that is fine. I have no problem with saying that racist and homophobic comments are simply unacceptable in a class of this sort, and I have no trouble with pointing out to this pompous and self-important student that, actually, he does not have some abstract right to free speech in her class.
But I have a big problem with Abbate suggesting that merely expressing opposition to gay marriage constitutes homophobia. I have nothing nice to say about the anti-gay-marriage view, but it is not inherently bigoted or homophobic. A student who expresses that view in a class discussion should not be intimidated or made to feel unwelcome. Abbate is being rather unfair to homosexuals in her implication that they will immediately get the vapors when someone expresses his opinion that gay marriage should not be allowed. More to the point, though, who cares if they are offended? A professor can require a civil discussion, but she cannot reasonably give a heckler's veto to students who would restrict what opinions can be expressed.
So Abbate could have handled the situation better. If a senior member of her department had sat her down to remind her of the importance of respecting different viewpoints, especially ones that might go against the norm, I would have no problem with it. But she was nowhere close to deserving a vicious and inaccurate personal attack, in which she was held up to the world as the symbol of liberal tyranny. As I see it, that's essentially what McAdams did.
Writing at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf defends McAdams:
Professor John McAdams is being stripped of tenure by Marquette University for writing a blog post that administrators characterize as inaccurate and irresponsible.
Academics all over the United States ought to denounce the firing of the 69-year-old, a Harvard Ph.D. who taught courses on American politics and public policy. If tenure can be taken away based upon one controversial blog post, what protection does it offer? How many tenured professors will censor themselves from participating in public conversation to avoid a similar fate? Marquette has violated core academic values, regardless of what one thinks of McAdams' commentary or the shabby treatment of the graduate instructor he was criticizing (who deserves sympathy for the horrifying torrent of misogyny others directed at her).
I have some sympathy for Friedersdorf's worry over the precedent this sets. But the fact remains that I don't see any core academic values being threatened here. McAdams is not in trouble for expressing a controversial opinion, or for conducting research that is outside the mainstream. If he had written a strongly-worded post decrying gay marriage, no one would be coming after him for it. Likewise if he had written a post decrying liberal arrogance and whatnot. For that matter, if he had attacked Abbate personally for views she expressed in a public lecture or in a published paper, that would have been just fine. To answer Friedersdorf's question, that's what tenure protects you from.
But tenure is not protection from the consequences of your own professional misconduct.
As you might imagine, this all has some personal resonance for me. The anti-religious opinions I express at this blog could easily get me in trouble with certain conservative politicians. The losing candidate in the most recent Virginia governor's race was a religious extremist with a lot of antipathy towards higher education. During the race I worried seriously about whether I could continue this blog if he won. However, I do feel confident that I have never come close to the line McAdams at least arguably crossed. Expressing opinions, and criticizing people who have made themselves at least limited public figures through their writing, is a far cry from what I summarized in my opening hypothetical.
Two other points to consider. The first is that this case is a useful reminder that, contrary to what ignorant people often say, tenure is not by any stretch a guaranteed job. Tenure only entitles you to certain due process rights if the university tries to get rid of you. It's a higher level of job protection than most people have, but it is nowhere close to allowing you to do just whatever you want.
The second point is to keep in mind that Marquette University is a Catholic (specifically Jesuit) school. I deplore the idea of limiting class discussions or declaring “safe spaces” or many of the other species of left-wing nonsense that sometimes afflict college campuses. But I do have to smile just a little at the thought that it is becoming socially unacceptable to express opposition to gay marriage even at Catholic universities.
- Log in to post comments
Tenure only entitles you to certain due process rights if the university tries to get rid of you. It’s a higher level of job protection than most people have,
Outside of the USA most people (not just academics) have that level of protection
The student recorded the conversation on his phone without telling her until after the fact. I'm not sure that's legal, and if it isn't, the student should be sanctioned.
Am I the only one who started reading this post and thought it was about Jerry Coyne and his posts about professors teaching creationism in science classes?
I've been following this issue for some time (I live in Milwaukee) and I've read the "offending" blogs. My impression is that, although there are blunders all around, the Professor's punishment seems fair.
sean s.
In theory, you are right. In practice, IMO it is hard to take credibly. If someone said their expressed opposition to interracial marriage had nothing to do with racism, I think we would be very skeptical that that was true. Likewise, I am going to be skeptical if someone tells me their opposition to SSM is solely principled and has nothing to do with a bias against gays or the 'ick' factor. Is that possible? Yes. Do I deem it likely? No.
I also think, however, that it is not helpful to necessarily accuse someone (opposed to SSM) of outright bigotry given that they may certainly believe they are making a principled stand. We all have biases. Study after study has shown that even the most inclusive or multicultural people tend to have some racist biases, for instance, no matter what we beileve about ourselves. Its far better to address such biases through patient discussion rather than accusation and rhetorical bombthrowing.
Tenure is obviously different, but I can tell you that in good, noncorrupt companies, personal attacks from senior employees on junior employees are not considered acceptable work behavior. I have personally seen several people fired for that, and it typically has little or nothing to do with the content of either person's opinion. You are expected to treat your co-workers with professional courtesy in the workplace, particularly if there is a power imbalance between the two of you, and if you don't, out you go. Object to some workplace plan? Object all you want. That is what teaming and meetings are for. Have some personal beef with someone? You don't air that in public; you address it one on one, in private. Or through your division/department head, again in private.
So, maybe tenure prevents professors from being fired when they are raging assholes towards grad student TAs (from other departments, no less!). Those sorts of professors should be thankful they are in academia, as their behavior would very likely not be tolerated in most corporate settings.
eric wrote:
Agreed. If a person didn't have an emotional commitment to this stance, the mere existence of biblical injunctions against the practice wouldn't stir their passions.
To Jason Rosenhouse:
“So Abbate could have handled the situation better… But she was nowhere close to deserving a vicious and inaccurate personal attack, in which she was held up to the world as the symbol of liberal tyranny. As I see it, that’s essentially what McAdams did.”
I read McAdams blog post here.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.in/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-g…
Would you please identify what specific wording was "VICIOUS"?
Would you please identify what specific wording was "inaccurate"?
Because I don’t see what you’re talking about.
See Noevo
The blog post left out that McAdam’s account is based entirely on one side of the story. Nor does it reveal that McAdams did not give Abbate sufficient time to respond, 9 hours beginning on a Sunday morning.
Nor does it say what the urgency was that McAdams could not wait. Nor why he had to “name names”.
Nor does it say that the discussion of SSM was not part of the syllabus, but only one example offered illustrating the actual topic.
Nor does it explain why the TA should have dropped everything to satisfy the wants of one student.
You have to go further to discover what the day’s topic actually was.
There’s so much McAdams left out, and things he did not need to say.
sean s.
The post by Prof. McAdams' blog are interesting. You don't read it and miss his stance on politics, rights, and social issues (use of gay lobby, "gay rights" with the quotes) in general. It would be interesting to get the entire story, but as sean says, that isn't going to happen by examining the version told by one person, especially when that person's information comes second hand. I wonder (although I don't think he should have done this either) why he didn't include the name of the "student we know" who filed the complaint?
His comments seem more the crabbing of a conservative Catholic who isn't happy the university isn't being run the way he thinks it should be run, and this time he let it get the better of him. Some of his other posts, and the Atlantic article, indicate he's been acting like this for some time. Perhaps the current actions represent a response to a long sequence of actions, with this just the most public.
"But I have a big problem with Abbate suggesting that merely expressing opposition to gay marriage constitutes homophobia. I have nothing nice to say about the anti-gay-marriage view, but it is not inherently bigoted or homophobic. "
I don't agree with this.
If the student had been expressing a point that black men shouldn't marry white women, then it would be clearly racist. I don't know how the discussion of gay marriage can be considered different. anymore.
To sean samis #8:
If this were baseball, you’d be a batter on your way to a second consecutive strikeout.
1
“The blog post left out that McAdam’s account is based entirely on one side of the story.”
And Abbate’s wasn’t one-sided?
2
“Nor does it reveal that McAdams did not give Abbate sufficient time to respond, 9 hours beginning on a Sunday morning.”
Is this some kind of statute of limitations thing I’m not aware of for writing blog posts?
3
“Nor does it say what the urgency was that McAdams could not wait. Nor why he had to “name names”.”
Is naming names “vicious” or “inaccurate”?
4
“Nor does it say that the discussion of SSM was not part of the syllabus, but only one example offered illustrating the actual topic.”
I think Abbate may have been the first to bring up SSM in the class. Regardless, it was being discussed in the class as an example of the topic in the syllabus.
5
“Nor does it explain why the TA should have dropped everything to satisfy the wants of one student.”
The TA DID drop/stop the SSM discussion with the student in the class. The TA freely continued the discussion AFTER class with the student.
@ #10
"If the student had been expressing a point that black men shouldn’t marry white women, then it would be clearly racist. I don’t know how the discussion of gay marriage can be considered different. anymore."
Absolutely right. I don't know what oppositional argument Jason is thinking of that is not clearly homophobic.
See Noevo
You asked; “And Abbate’s wasn’t one-sided?”.
And Abbate’s – WHAT? – wasn’t one-sided? What did Abbate do that was “one sided”?
You asked “Is this some kind of statute of limitations thing I’m not aware of for writing blog posts?”
No, but then is ten seconds too little?
If you don’t wait a reasonable time, then only urgency would permit going ahead without her comments, and then you’d be obligated to tell your readers that she hadn’t responded yet.
McAdams did not explain the urgency nor admit to the lack of input.
Was it reasonable to expect Abbate to see and respond to the email in the time allotted? On a Sunday?
What was the urgency? (I notice you skipped over that one.)
You asked “Is naming names “vicious” or “inaccurate”?”
You should take that up with whoever used those words, I didn’t.
You wrote “I think Abbate may have been the first to bring up SSM in the class. Regardless, it was being discussed in the class as an example of the topic in the syllabus.”
No for two reasons:
First, what you think is irrelevant, what happened is what matters.
Secondly, according to comments made by participants, Abbate asked for examples of public policy issues to illustrate application of Rawl’s “Liberty Principle”. SSM was only one of several student suggested (not Abbate) and Abbate only said about it that it seemed (in relation to the Liberty Principle) a settled question. Other matters like motorcycle helmet laws were also discussed.
TAs have the discretion to keep class discussions on track and on-time. if Abbate cut the SSM discussion off, that was within her discretionary authority.
You wrote that “The TA DID drop/stop the SSM discussion with the student in the class. The TA freely continued the discussion AFTER class with the student.”
As I said above, TAs have the discretion to keep class discussions on track and on-time. if Abbate cut the SSM discussion off, that was within her discretionary authority.
And the fact she took it up After class satisfies the demand to discuss it with the student.
sean s.
Arguments from tradition, or that marriage should be about procreation are not homophobic. They are also inconsistent or very weak, but they are not homophobic.
And yes, I know people who argue from those premises. I’ve been debating this topic with objectors since the late-80’s.
sean s.
"Absolutely right. I don’t know what oppositional argument Jason is thinking of that is not clearly homophobic."
Here in Michigan the ban on same sex marriage has been in the news quite a bit the last few months. Locally, on the West side of the state, we have an especially vocal opponent basing his argument on the "fact" that marriage is exclusively about procreation - carrying on the human race - and since it is impossible for people in a same sex relationship to have children, they should not be allowed to marry: that would (he asserts) steal from society. when asked "what about opposite sex couples who do not want children?" he replies:
* there is no way opposite couples who have intercourse can avoid children - birth control and sterilization fail
When it is pointed out that same sex couples do have children
* it isn't natural and doesn't count
When asked about older couples who are beyond child-bearing age: "they may have already had children. If not, they probably shouldn't be considered marriage either."
Of course this is all tied in some cockamamy way to his religion, as much of this type of bigotry is. (He also believes businesses should be allowed to turn same sex couples away, but to be "fair" to him - he has expressed that they should be allowed to turn anyone they don't like away, for any reason).
So homophobic or just a complete and utter religious nutjob?
dean, your choices are not mutually exclusive, so probably both.
sean s.
But tenure is not protection from the consequences of your own professional misconduct.
But a blog post on your own blog shouldn't constitute professional misconduct -
"your choices are not mutually exclusive, so probably both."
No doubt about that, and I know people in that intersection - several in my family, several in my wife's, and others in the local area.
I'm not sure about the fellow I mention because he hasn't been giving the usual vicious attacks at gays and lesbians - just this foolish child thing.
He has some religious objection to vaccination as well: there are many things that make me categorize him as more of a religious nut than anything else.
Would you also accept an argument that interracial marriage is opposed on the basis of tradition, with no racial bias? Tradition is simply a rationalization, and the procreation argument makes no sense at all, for obvious reasons. No one can read the mind of another, but one has to work hard not to see the homophobia underlying these so-called arguments.
Deepak Shetty;
If your conduct causes harm to your employer, a fellow employee, a student or others, your conduct is not insulated from professional consequences just because it occurred on your own blog. Nor should it be. We live in the 21st century now, and the line between private and public conduct is very, very blurry.
sean s.
If I excoriated a junior member of my corporation's job performance on a public blog or FB page, and the company found out about it, I'm pretty sure they'd fire me for it. It is professional misconduct to discuss what is essentially an internal job performance matter with the public. A raging debate with a co-worker about the legality of same sex marriage, or politics, or religion outside of the office? Yeah, I can do that. Detailing what they did on the job that I thought was wrong and unacceptable as a junior employee? No; that's professional misconduct.
Again though, different standards apply to academia. I won't argue against an academic if they tell me that tenure is a shield against firing for such conduct.
tomh
“Would you also accept an argument that interracial marriage is opposed on the basis of tradition, with no racial bias?”
Would I accept it? I’m not even sure what that means. There’s no rational reason to oppose interracial marriage (or SSM). An argument from tradition might not be racist (or homophobic), but it’s still wrong.
“... but one has to work hard not to see the homophobia underlying these so-called arguments.”
It’s easy to imagine that homophobia underlies these arguments, but it’s not hard to see that this view is our projection of our prejudices too.
What matters is not whether the objections to SSM are homophobic or not, but whether they make sense even if not homophobic. They don’t make sense so I see no value in searching for ulterior motives.
sean s.
To sean samis #13:
“What did Abbate do that was “one sided”?
I’m sorry. Maybe I missed it. Where did Abbate show support for anything other than a pro-gay “marriage” position?
“You asked “Is this some kind of statute of limitations thing I’m not aware of for writing blog posts?” No, but then is ten seconds too little? ... you’d be obligated to tell your readers that she hadn’t responded yet.”
News flash: There IS NO time limit of any kind. Not for the time being anyway. (But, maybe, there will be when Obama takes over the internet. As Hillary say, “It’s a foot in the door.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-calls-regulating-internet-i… )
“McAdams did not explain the urgency nor admit to the lack of input…What was the urgency?”
So, if you’re perceived to be acting with “urgency”, you may not only lose your tenure, you may get fired.
“You asked “Is naming names “vicious” or “inaccurate”?” You should take that up with whoever used those words, I didn’t.”
I have. But Jason hasn’t responded. You seem to be supporting Jason’s position, so I brought up his words in my post to you.
“First, what you think is irrelevant, what happened is what matters. Secondly, according to comments made by participants…”
Has the university given a confirmed blow-by-blow account of exactly what happened to back up their controversial dismissal of McAdams?
“… if Abbate cut the SSM discussion off, that was within her discretionary authority.”
On at least one thing, we agree!
“Homophobic” means “fear of homosexuals.”
I don’t have any fear of homosexuals, and I’ve never heard of anyone who does.
Perhaps the best reason to punish McAdams is not just because he caused harms, but that–presented with a teaching moment on how to discuss contentious issues–he blew it. If he had left the TAs name out and just focused on what happened in the class and after, then he could have made all the points he needed to make and not have gotten into any trouble.
But he left important facts out and named names, and then made Abbate the scapegoat for all the things about the left he hates.
McAdams was done in by a “swinging door problem”. He pushed the door and before he could get through it smacked him in the face.
sean s.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a
ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
noun
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
look it up.
sean s.
Homophobia – From the Greek “phobia” meaning “fear, panic, terror”, and “h o m o”, slang for “homosexual”.
Soon-to-be-released update to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
“Women’s reproductive rights”: Access to free abortion. (See also “women’s health care”.).
Look it up.
"Would you also accept an argument that interracial marriage is opposed on the basis of tradition, with no racial bias? "
I am not accepting his argument about same sex marriage at all. I see it more as a product of a mind polluted by religion than basic hatred. Just as despicable, just different motivation.
Ah. Humor. See Noevo, don’t give up your day job.
sean s.
"There IS NO time limit of any kind. Not for the time being anyway. (But, maybe, there will be when Obama takes over the internet. "
Your conspiracy theories aren't even amusing - what is amusing is your belief any single person, or country on behalf of a person, could 'take over the internet' even if the desire was there. But that's the level of thought we expect from you.
"“Women’s reproductive rights”: Access to free abortion. "
That would be nice if it happened.
To the point of this post: The articles Jason links to are interesting, as is McAdams' blog entry. As one of the articles points out, this is not the first time McAdams has used his blog to discuss, not in a polite way, the actions of Marquette students, naming them in the process. He was advised against this in 2011, yet he does it again. He seems to be a bit of a loose gun. There is also a question about one part of his post: he says this that the instructor told the male student that
According to the Inside Higher Ed article, that is not on the student's recording of their conversation. It isn't clear (to me) whether he added that or the un-named student claimed it.
Where did he go too far? Naming her. Linking her (by including them) to the other "liberal" thing that annoy him. Claiming that he did not intend harm and does not want Marquette to reprimand her doesn't matter.
Old news:
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/06/10/suspicions-co…
You need a reputable source sn.
From the above Town Hall article:
“Sociology professor Neil Gross, a self-described liberal, reveals the results of surveys showing this bias in his new book, Why Professors are Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care?”
Even older news:
“The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
Another “conservative” source, the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html
Hmmm. 75% say political affiliation would not influence them: 25% said it would. No information on whether those 25% control hiring or not.
"“On average, the DGSs (directors of graduate studies) responded less frequently, more slowly, and less enthusiastically to the conservative applicant.”"
One wonders if the only difference in Gross' fake applications was the political information - also what the time was. He may address this in his book, but it is not addressed in the article.
"Today, 63 percent of female academics describe themselves as feminists."
Not surprising - they are educated and working outside the home. I'm sure that any indication of feminism is bad to the folks at townhall.
"The average professor is three times as liberal as the average American"
No support given in the article - not even a statement on how that would be measured.
"Conservative professor Mary Grabar debunks Gross’s thesis, publishing essays from six white male professors who have been blocked out of higher academia, in her new book, Exiled: Stories From Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized and Frozen Out."
You do not debunk things with anecodotes.
"Gross interviewed professors on whether they engage in political indoctrination, or “critical pedagogy.” Two of fifty-seven professors he interviewed fully admitted they were guilty of it."
Bad, if true - but you can't argue 2 of 57 is huge percentage.
"Economics, criminology, and engineering still have a significant portion of conservative professors, although not quite 50 percent."
If those engineers are folks like phil i can see that as a problem, otherwise - no issue at all.
From the NYT:
See Noevo@24
"Homophobia" no longer means solely "the fear of homosexuality" (if it ever did). Now it primarily means the hatred of homosexuals.
We've changed that definition, See. Just like we've changed the definition of marriage.
Please bear in mind, dear See Noevo, that the Nixon campaign of 1968, in its "Southern Strategy" of exploiting the white backlash against civil rights, referred to its target audience as "Negrophobes" - though very few of said proud conservative Christian white men would have admitted to "fear" of African-Americans.
I guess most of the people here are guilty of “conservaphobia.”
See Noevo;
Regarding, “I guess most of the people here are guilty of “conservaphobia.”.”
To be fair, that may be true. But even those who do not hate or despise conservatism have good reasons to think this conservative blogger was fairly punished. There is a line and he crossed it in his own personal self-promoting efforts to increase page-views.
Being conservative does not give him a license to be an ass.
sean s.
Not at all. Did you not read when Jason wrote:
The problem, as was pointed out several times, is McAdams' over the top response, the personal attack on her, linking her to all of the problems he sees at Marquette, and (worst to me) named her, leading to the email threats she's been receiving. As noted in the articles, he has a history of naming students on his blog when he doesn't like them, and was reprimanded for it before.
You can be upset with the actions themselves without taking social and political views into account.
I'd suggest you start dealing with facts in different situations sn, but since you've been ignoring them across several blogs I'm sure that isn't going to happen now.
@sean samis
Sure - but other than criticizing the colleague (and naming her) - the tone/words used doesn't seem to be "misconduct". if you are a conservative , its expected that you will be critical of liberal views when your colleagues express them. (or can we not name colleagues who express bigoted views?)
The only grey area seems to be naming of names but its hard to see how disallowing that on a personal blog can work. If the teaching assistant was a student then I guess there are additional dynamics at play that would make the naming a no-no.
Deepak Shetty wrote
The TA was a grad student; so she was not really a colleague. Also, the TA was in a different department from McAdams.
sean s.
To sean samis #39:
Me: “I guess most of the people here are guilty of “conservaphobia.”
You: “To be fair, that may be true. But … Being conservative does not give him a license to be an ass.”
And just because someone wants to have sex with an ass, does not give him the license to have it recognized as “marriage”.
To dean #40:
Me: “I guess most of the people here are guilty of “conservaphobia.”
You: “Not at all.”
You quoted JR: “I have nothing nice to say about the [invariably conservative] anti-gay-marriage view…”
And you write “The problem, as was pointed out several times, is McAdams’ over the top response, the PERSONAL ATTACK on her, linking her to all of the problems he sees at Marquette, and (worst to me) named her…”
Marquette, like virtually all universities around the country, has become increasingly liberal, with professors (and TAs) pushing liberalism harder every day. This is beyond dispute. If McAdams linked her actions to the overall trend at Marquette, it was unnecessary, BECAUSE it goes without saying.
And what was the PERSONAL ATTACK, exactly? Identifying a TA by name? What’s wrong with that? Although Marquette is technically a private university, I would bet a good bit of money it receives some amount of federal funding somewhere. Assuming it does, I, as part of the approximately 50% of income earners who actually pay federal income tax, would like to know who the teachers are that I’m paying for and what they’re saying.
Is that so wrong, conservaphobe?
Sn, it isn't because you are conservative that I have no respect for you. You've willfully chosen to make yourself scientifically ignorant (that isn't the reason either) and chosen to repeatedly lie about what science says: clearly you haven't taken the time to attempt any understanding of evolution, you hint the same about quantum mechanics, you stated you don't think any money or time should be spent studying things with no immediate application. Choosing ignorance is your option: implying it is because a collection of myths proves modern science wrong causes the dislike.
Your tax comment cements your ignorance - with government support for education at a low, your contribution (and min is quite insignificant.
So putting the name of a person out in public, associating her with numerous "evils" with which she had no connection, giving partial information about the incident, isn't a bad thing? Did you notice the article (if you read it) pointed out he had done the same thing before, and after discussions said he wouldn't do it again?
Every time you type you make you self more loathsome.
"with government support for education at a low"
It's only the results that are consistently low. The funding increases every year. http://www.ed.gov/budget15
The funding habits, and the abysmal results, will both continue to follow their decades-old trends.
The link you provide refers to federal funding for education, but federal funds only provide about 10% of public school funds. In the US, pubic schools are financed by state and local governments, and there have been massive cuts in state funding over the last 7 or 8 years. In spite of increased revenues, most states continue to cut education funding.
dean #45 has See Noevo-phobia.
"there have been massive cuts in state funding over the last 7 or 8 years."
I don't really detect a strong trend in that direction.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_education_spend
Our future liberal professors, training well.
When they’re running the show, things will get even crazier:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414685/liberals-outraged-universi…