Out over the weekend, a nasty attack on this blog by several Marquette Arts & Sciences Department chairs – and signed onto by a handful of Marquette faculty – posted on a blog that has been dedicated, for the last few days, to harassing us.
It resulted from our reporting of the misconduct of a Philosophy Department instructor who told a student who wanted to discuss gay marriage in class that his views were “homophobic,” and that any airing of opposition to gay marriage should not be allowed since it would “offend” any gay students in the class.
The list of department chairs who signed on is interesting.
Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology
With just a couple of exceptions, it’s pretty much a roll of the politically correct department chairs. Masson, for example, is a big proponent of the doctrine of “white privilege” which holds that white people owe what they have to the exploitation of black people. It doesn’t matter if you never owned slaves. It doesn’t matter if an ancestor died fighting on the Union side in the Civil War. You should feel guilty.
Snow was the lesbian philosopher with the bullhorn heading protests demanding the hiring of aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean job candidate Jodi O’Brien.
Snow, Marten, Ratcliffe, and Pasero all signed a petition to hire O’Brien. Barrington wore a button at the commencement following the hiring fiasco supporting O’Brien’s hiring.
Of course, if the signers generally represent politically correct departments, it doesn’t follow that everybody in their departments is a politically correct leftist. There is a substantial number of more conservative and traditionalist scholars in the Philosophy Department. But they are a dwindling number, since the politically correct faction controls hiring.
Political Science leans clearly left, but isn’t very politically correct, Barrington’s signature to the contrary.
And it doesn’t follow that departments not involved in attacking us support us. More likely they simply haven’t been following this brouhaha, and/or don’t really care. But it remains the case that this is a tempest in a teapot, involving a very few faculty in the humanities and social sciences.
But then we got nasty comments too. When one does something that gets national publicity, some jerks are going to say nasty things. Neither we nor anybody at Marquette can help that.
This, of course, is a classic case of blaming the messenger. It was Abbate’s actions toward the student which caused the problem, and even then it was not newsworthy until Marquette officials failed to address the problem.
When the student complained to the Dean’s office, he was directed to Philosophy Department Chair Nancy Snow. Snow could have told the student that Abbate was out of line, and that it was not Marquette’s position that opposition to gay marriage is “homophobic” nor that gays should be protected from hearing arguments against it.
Indeed, Snow could have had a little talk with Abbate and advised her against making inflammatory statements to students, and told her that Marquette’s policy is that all students (straight or gay) should equally be confronted in class with arguments they might dislike. No need for even a paper trail on that. But instead, Snow demanded the name of the employee who had advised the student to seek redress.
Having not received any redress, the student came to us.
So it seems we have a double standard here: attacking Marquette from the left is acceptable, but any attack from the right is evil since it harms Marquette’s “academic reputation.”
If there are some colleges out there who don’t want instructors who tell students that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, Abbate might not get hired there. That is appropriate. We feel no obligation to suppress information to help her get a job
But of course, in an increasingly politically correct philosophy profession, hiring in a lot of departments is dominated by people who think pretty much as Abbate does.
Further, she has made no effort to conceal her political views, having on her blog an essay about how all men are responsible for rape.
(She has taken her blog private [https://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/] but we got a brief summary of her article from Google cache.)
Interestingly, the politically correct crowd cares nothing about the “campus climate” for groups other than their pet victim groups.
How did it affect the “campus climate” for Jews when various Marquette offices sponsored an “Israeli Apartheid” week?
And how about the “campus climate” for conservative Christians who don’t believe in evolution, but get taught about it in a biology class?
(We once had a student who was disturbed that he was being taught about evolution in Norman Sullivan’s Physical Anthropology class. We told him he had to suck it up and accept that if you take Physical Anthropology, you are going to learn about evolution.)
Politically correct people won’t accept these analogies, of course, since they sharply distinguish between victims groups who must be protected, and other groups who must bear the burden of having their beliefs contradicted. But we don’t accept this distinction, and Marquette can’t officially accept it.
How might we have “altered” people’s behavior?
It’s deeply ironic that those who want Marquette administrators to shut us up are claiming that we want to deny “academic freedom” to others. We can’t deny academic freedom to anybody. We can only report what they do and say.
Professors have a long history of thinking that “academic freedom” includes freedom from being criticized. They happily say what they want to say, and then whine when others say their positions are wrong, or misguided, or downright evil.
But in a free society, freedom works both ways. The people who criticize the professors have the same free speech rights as the professors. And professors have the right to criticize other professors. The politically correct types, living in the insular little environment of an academic department, have trouble understanding that.
The notion of a robust free market in ideas is fine when they are the only player in the market.
It’s “free speech for me, but not for thee.” And it’s a symptom of the increasing intolerance of academia.
It resulted from our reporting of the misconduct of a Philosophy Department instructor who told a student who wanted to discuss gay marriage in class that his views were “homophobic,” and that any airing of opposition to gay marriage should not be allowed since it would “offend” any gay students in the class.
The list of department chairs who signed on is interesting.
Lowell Barrington, Political Science
Nancy Snow, Philosophy
James Marten, History
Jane Peterson, Social and Cultural Sciences
Krista Ratcliffe, English
John Grych, Psychology
Anne Pasero, Foreign Languages and Literatures
Robert Masson, Theology
With just a couple of exceptions, it’s pretty much a roll of the politically correct department chairs. Masson, for example, is a big proponent of the doctrine of “white privilege” which holds that white people owe what they have to the exploitation of black people. It doesn’t matter if you never owned slaves. It doesn’t matter if an ancestor died fighting on the Union side in the Civil War. You should feel guilty.
Snow was the lesbian philosopher with the bullhorn heading protests demanding the hiring of aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean job candidate Jodi O’Brien.
Snow, Marten, Ratcliffe, and Pasero all signed a petition to hire O’Brien. Barrington wore a button at the commencement following the hiring fiasco supporting O’Brien’s hiring.
Who’s Not There
Notable are departments not included: Economics, Math, and the natural sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics). Those departments are in “hard” disciplines where there is much less room for political correctness. And indeed, every one of the few people who have signed onto the statement in the comments section is (as of this writing) from one of the departments whose chairs signed, with the exception of Sharon Chubbuck in Education. Chubbuck wrote an essay where she demeaned two students who did not want to use the classroom to indoctrinate pupils saying they were showing “ the blinders of their common white, middle- to upper-middle class experiences.”Of course, if the signers generally represent politically correct departments, it doesn’t follow that everybody in their departments is a politically correct leftist. There is a substantial number of more conservative and traditionalist scholars in the Philosophy Department. But they are a dwindling number, since the politically correct faction controls hiring.
Political Science leans clearly left, but isn’t very politically correct, Barrington’s signature to the contrary.
And it doesn’t follow that departments not involved in attacking us support us. More likely they simply haven’t been following this brouhaha, and/or don’t really care. But it remains the case that this is a tempest in a teapot, involving a very few faculty in the humanities and social sciences.
Evaluating the Claims
The illogic of the Department Chairs statement is not only evident when it is taken as a whole, but also in virtually every sentence. Let’s take them one at a time:We support Ms. Abbate and deeply regret that she has experienced harassment and intimidation as a direct result of Prof. McAdams’s actions.All we did was to report, accurately, the inappropriate actions of Abbate in demeaning a student, and claiming that gay students should not be exposed to any arguments against gay marriage. It is true that, when the story went national, she was subjected to some nasty e-mails and blog comments (although nothing required her to read the blog with the nastiest comments).
But then we got nasty comments too. When one does something that gets national publicity, some jerks are going to say nasty things. Neither we nor anybody at Marquette can help that.
Prof. McAdams’s actions—which have been reported in local and national media outlets—have harmed the personal reputation of a young scholar as well as the academic reputation of Marquette University.If accurate reporting harms someone’s reputation, that is fair enough. And if accurate reporting harms Marquette’s reputation, that is also fair enough. The argument here seems to be that certain information needs to be concealed to protect reputations. No journalist would accept that. The rule should be “tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.”
This, of course, is a classic case of blaming the messenger. It was Abbate’s actions toward the student which caused the problem, and even then it was not newsworthy until Marquette officials failed to address the problem.
When the student complained to the Dean’s office, he was directed to Philosophy Department Chair Nancy Snow. Snow could have told the student that Abbate was out of line, and that it was not Marquette’s position that opposition to gay marriage is “homophobic” nor that gays should be protected from hearing arguments against it.
Indeed, Snow could have had a little talk with Abbate and advised her against making inflammatory statements to students, and told her that Marquette’s policy is that all students (straight or gay) should equally be confronted in class with arguments they might dislike. No need for even a paper trail on that. But instead, Snow demanded the name of the employee who had advised the student to seek redress.
Having not received any redress, the student came to us.
Marquette’s “Reputation”
Ironically, Snow vigorously attacked Marquette over the issue of its failure to hire Jodi O’Brien. Snow was the lesbian philosopher with the bullhorn condemning Marquette for its action.So it seems we have a double standard here: attacking Marquette from the left is acceptable, but any attack from the right is evil since it harms Marquette’s “academic reputation.”
Abbate’s “Reputation”
Does our blog post harm Abbate, for example making it harder for her to get an academic job?If there are some colleges out there who don’t want instructors who tell students that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, Abbate might not get hired there. That is appropriate. We feel no obligation to suppress information to help her get a job
But of course, in an increasingly politically correct philosophy profession, hiring in a lot of departments is dominated by people who think pretty much as Abbate does.
Further, she has made no effort to conceal her political views, having on her blog an essay about how all men are responsible for rape.
(She has taken her blog private [https://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/] but we got a brief summary of her article from Google cache.)
They have negatively affected campus climate, especially as it relates to gender and sexual orientation.Just how is this the case? Is the claim that female instructors can’t be criticized, but males can? Is the claim that a good “campus climate” for gays requires that views of which they might disapprove be suppressed? Saying so implies that gays are a bunch of either wimps (if they are fearful upon hearing certain opinions) or bigots (if they get bent out of shape on hearing things they disagree with).
Interestingly, the politically correct crowd cares nothing about the “campus climate” for groups other than their pet victim groups.
How did it affect the “campus climate” for Jews when various Marquette offices sponsored an “Israeli Apartheid” week?
And how about the “campus climate” for conservative Christians who don’t believe in evolution, but get taught about it in a biology class?
(We once had a student who was disturbed that he was being taught about evolution in Norman Sullivan’s Physical Anthropology class. We told him he had to suck it up and accept that if you take Physical Anthropology, you are going to learn about evolution.)
Politically correct people won’t accept these analogies, of course, since they sharply distinguish between victims groups who must be protected, and other groups who must bear the burden of having their beliefs contradicted. But we don’t accept this distinction, and Marquette can’t officially accept it.
And they have led members of the Marquette community to alter their behavior out of fear of becoming the subject of one of his attacks.We don’t control anybody’s behavior. But if people fear that, when they do something dumb or prejudiced or inappropriate, we will out them, that’s dandy. The politically correct crowd seems to think they have a right to do things that are highly questionable and have them kept secret.
How might we have “altered” people’s behavior?
- In 2006, a graduate student in Philosophy (note how it keeps popping up) put an innocuous political quote on his door. Department Chair James South decided it was “patently offensive” and tore it down. We blogged about it. Will South be less likely to do things like this again? That’s his call, but we hope he will.
- In 2008, and student in Nancy Snow’s class responded to her lecture on “racial profiling” by giving the cops’ view of the issue. Snow tried to shut him up, and then, after class, insisted that he write an apology to two black students in the class. It was assumed they were “offended.” (There is that word again) We blogged about it. Did that make her less likely to shut down certain viewpoints?
- In 2013, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center sponsored a program called “Femsex” where a variety of sexual issues were discussed (often in ways contrary to Catholic teaching), and participants engaged in a variety of exercises, including coloring pictures of female genitalia in the “Cunt Coloring Book.” We blogged about it. Marquette, insisting that it was contrary to its Catholic mission, removed official sponsorship (although the participants were free to continue sans such sponsorship). Will Marquette bureaucrats think twice before sponsoring that sort of thing again? We hope so.
Perhaps worst of all, Prof. McAdams has betrayed his role as a faculty member by pitting one set of students against another.So all students are suppose to agree? So undergraduates exposed to abuse by an instructor are not supposed to seek redress? So if it hadn’t been for that troublemaker McAdams everything would be dandy? It would be from the standpoint of campus bureaucrats, but not from that of students who are attacked and demeaned and silenced.
by claiming the protection of academic freedom while trying to deny it to others, and by exploiting current political issues to promote his personal agenda.Our “personal agenda” is to protect students from the excesses of political correctness at Marquette. The “personal agenda” of those to signed the statement is to subject students to the dictates of political correctness.
It’s deeply ironic that those who want Marquette administrators to shut us up are claiming that we want to deny “academic freedom” to others. We can’t deny academic freedom to anybody. We can only report what they do and say.
Professors have a long history of thinking that “academic freedom” includes freedom from being criticized. They happily say what they want to say, and then whine when others say their positions are wrong, or misguided, or downright evil.
But in a free society, freedom works both ways. The people who criticize the professors have the same free speech rights as the professors. And professors have the right to criticize other professors. The politically correct types, living in the insular little environment of an academic department, have trouble understanding that.
Conclusion
The intellectual shoddiness of the attack on us raises all kinds of questions, the most fundamental one being the lack of tolerance for free speech. Leftist professors who would be quite happy having Marquette attacked from the left on issues like “diversity” and “sustainability” go bananas when their own behavior is criticized.The notion of a robust free market in ideas is fine when they are the only player in the market.
It’s “free speech for me, but not for thee.” And it’s a symptom of the increasing intolerance of academia.
If I might speak for a father who would love to send his children to Marquette, I am grateful that you continue to report on these issue. I hope in the future MU can become an institution that fosters an appropriate level of academic freedom to build leaders of the future. Well rounded intelligent human beings, whether conservative or liberal, are not built in vacuums. The total lack of maturity of the staff in question is embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost McAdams is a juggernaut. Second, really a rather tempered response from the LGBT community: The only article I read from a specific source presented it fairly objectively - http://goo.gl/84J0Yl
ReplyDelete- it is definitely worth noting that the gay community itself is taking a more sophisticated stand on this than the left professors.
I concede that Abbate's conduct was nowhere near the most egregious in the history of the campus left. There's a professor in philosophy who thinks it a gimmick to have Nazi philosophy read; then, at once and summarily, dismisses it: putting the student in what might be called "a cruel dilemma," of either speaking up for the Nazi point, or, be silent witness to an effrontery against the free market of ideas, as the opposition goes unconsidered. An archetypal example of the peril a student faces as the result of the questionable conduct of faculty.
But, remember, in this iteration of the misconduct of the campus left, McAdams spares Abbate the sharpest critique: Her weaponizing of the phrase, "Then drop the class." Is there a professor's code there which McAdams knows about? Abideth? But you won't touch on it on the blog. Teachers throughout academia use this remark as a lever, or worse.
Any good student knows what it is for a teacher to try to cow them with that remark. Often, as not, I would say because the professor herself cannot avoid the force of the student's reasoning. I would say also that that fact might not stand out in McAdams' mind because he is a very affable gentleman as a professor, the type that will accommodate a late student in registering for his class, rather than telling someone to drop it.
Someone should speak up - I will - 100% for the student here. When another professor censors people, at least he directs attention back to a text: here, it for the all the world seems as though Abbate's initial remark about "what modern stuff does this pertain to?" -- paraphrasing about Rawls by the way now, specifically draws attention away from the text, exactly a fitting place for an exercise of free expression. Something unspoken of yet and which should be mentioned from a student perspective and that's: just how mundane the listing off right then would have been in that class. A lively polemic about gay marriage would have been a bracing change away from the mundane recital exercise happening just then.
Anyone arriving to this lately remember that in the past the Marquette political science department has been reduced to gathering a triumvirate of professors together to meet with McAdams, that they might gain by number what they could not, by their own, individually, come to, by the strength of their reason.
This, all, from the geniuses that brought you "The Marquette Gold" a fiasco in 2005 where the mascot's name was changed from "Golden Eagles" to "The Gold." And then, in the great Zimbabwean tradition, held a rigged election for the replacement of "The Marquette Gold," amongst the student body, after its widespread repudiation. That's right ladies and gentleman, we're talking about the administration at a university that held a rigged election.
The basketball team got beat by Ohio State. Wojo thought different he thought it wouldn't come up: you are expected to win instantly. Didn't see Wojo amongst the signers against McAdams, though, which does speak volumes.
I hope Abbate does well. The left could use more young people who have rubbed shoulders with McAdams. What a thing it would be if collegiality on campus could be restored to the point of a handshake between these two. Perhaps orchestrated by Dr. Lovell himself.
"And professors have the right to criticize other professors."
ReplyDeleteBut the whole point of this criticism here is that Abbate is not a professor but a graduate student. Hence she is someone to whom you owe a duty of mentorship, not someone whom you can use with impunity as a pawn in your crusade.
As for your washing your hands of the third party abuse Abbate received as an entirely predictable result of your actions, this is terribly disingenuous coming from a professor of political science listing "public opinion" as one of your specialities. You know how "doxxing" works, or at least you should, and you should take responsibility for your actions.
Dr. McAdams,
ReplyDeleteTrue or false: You assign reading from a book that argues policy should prioritize men getting jobs over women getting jobs?
Just to add a little context to your description of other professors as extreme.
Doc, any 'truth' that doesn't square with theirs IS harassment. I thought you knew that. *sarcasm*
ReplyDeleteYou assign reading from a book that argues policy should prioritize men getting jobs over women getting jobs?
ReplyDeleteIf you mean the Gilder book, yes, he does seem to say that.
But I assign it because of his emphasis on the breakdown of the family, and men failing to be good husbands.
I never say that men should have any preference, and encourage students to critique Gilder.
I don't think women should get preference either. I'm against any kind of job market discrimination.
Yes, I am referring to the Gilder book. And he does not "seem" to say this, he says so explicitly. Gilder has also said that men are innately superior workers and women are biologically not as capable "in the great creative ventures outside the family circle." If an author is making those claims, do you think the book really is important for a public policy course (which you claim is based on hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis), or is it more likely that you are including it because you'll never turn down a chance to voice your opinion on the culture wars? In this regard, you are just as guilty as the "politically correct leftist academics" you incessantly attack. How would you like it if a professor from another department blogged about your course teaching that women aren't as worthy of finding jobs and that they are innately inferior workers? Would they be nitpicking? Yeah, a little. Would it be any less fair than you relying on a single student's account of a course or professor? Not at all.
ReplyDeleteGilder has also said that men are innately superior workers and women are biologically not as capable "in the great creative ventures outside the family circle."
ReplyDeleteYou are quoting from something on Wikipedia, not the chapters I assign from the book I assign.
You, in other words, are doing the politically correct thing and picking out one politically incorrect thing the writer said to attack everything he said.
Get the book I assigned (Men and Marriage) and read the chapters I assigned. They deal with the fact that men who fail to marry and function properly as husbands.
If you don't like Guilder, what about assigning Marx in college courses?
I had a colleague (now retired) who was a Marxist and assigned Marx in a course on Marx.
The course is still in the catalog, and if it is taught again it will be taught by a non-Marxist and he will *still* assign Marx.
So assigning Gilder is terrible, but assigning Marx is fine?
If Marx is fine but Gilder is not, you are guilty of a double standard.
I think students should read both.
The direct quote I provided was from Wikipedia only because I went to check his other works. That does not change the fact that my description of "Men and Marriage" was entirely accurate. From page 40:
ReplyDelete"The society thus has a much larger stake in employing young men than in employing young women. The unemployed man can contribute little to the community and will often disrupt it, but the woman may even do more good without a job than with one. Her joblessness may spur new efforts to induce a man to work, supporting her own crucial role as a mother."
Are you going to tell me that is rigorous fact-based academic policy analysis and not unsubstantiated, culture war rhetoric? Saying that a colleague assigned Marx in a course on Marx suggests that you consider Gild equally relevant to your course on public policy. And yes, I do think that assigning Marx in a course on Marx is more appropriate and relevant than assigning Gild in a class on public policy supposedly based on cost-benefit analysis. If you have a problem with there being a course on Marx while you teach public policy with a blatant ideological bias it is you who holds a double standard.
"You, in other words, are doing the politically correct thing and picking out one politically incorrect thing the writer said to attack everything he said."
ReplyDeleteYou have to be kidding me. You do this all the time! When speakers came to the Israeli Apartheid event (blanking on the exact name) you found the most incendiary comments any of them have ever made. Just in the past few days you posted a video of Dr. Snow making rather extreme comments as if that discredits her from sticking up for a student in her department. You took the word of one student and his description of the most "politically correct" aspects of a course and used them to publicly blast a professor whose curriculum you knew nothing about. Yet here you are, talking about how it's only the left who holds double standards, unfairly portrays its opponents, and takes the most extreme quotes one makes to discredit the rest of their work.
Actually there was a video........
DeleteWhen ranting it is always good to check background facts. That's not cherry picking. It is impractical to show the entire video most times, there may also be legal concerns.
I take back the comment about you potentially having a problem with students reading Marx. Missed your comment about thinking students should read both. My bad.
ReplyDelete"The society thus has a much larger stake in employing young men than in employing young women. The unemployed man can contribute little to the community and will often disrupt it, but the woman may even do more good without a job than with one. Her joblessness may spur new efforts to induce a man to work, supporting her own crucial role as a mother."
ReplyDeleteYou need to get your head in the game and actually read the Gilder chapters I assigned.
Gilder thinks the role of men is at issue. They are either working fathers and good husbands, or they are disconnected from the family and then an anti-social force.
Women's role is far less problematic. Either caring for children or in the workforce, they are securely contributors to society.
Note that you don't quote him saying women should not be in the workforce, but that in some cases it is fine if they are not.
When speakers came to the Israeli Apartheid event (blanking on the exact name) you found the most incendiary comments any of them have ever made.
ReplyDeleteSo if I had just included more context, "Israeli Apartheid Week" would *not* have been offensive to Jewish students?
I didn't have access to all the comments made by all the speakers, but the tone of the event was clear.
I take back the comment about you potentially having a problem with students reading Marx. Missed your comment about thinking students should read both.
ReplyDeleteHow about you? Do you think it's fine if students read both, or should Gilder be banned in academia?
P.S. Are you on campus? If so, you should come in and talk to me sometime. I don't bite, and I think we might be able to have an amiable conversation.
Anyway, happy Thanksgiving
ReplyDeleteSame to you, KeynesianPacker.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was serious about your coming in and talking to me if you get a chance.
I graduated from Marquette in 1979. I am in shock of what I am reading about how the same sex attraction crowd has obviously kidnapped the academic elite-want-a-Be's. Father Davitt, my ethic professor from Marquette is turning over in his grave. This is no longer a Catholic University--it has bitten the same poisonous apple that Adam and Eve did--pride. Why is there no talk of sin? Does the faculty have any biblical knowledge? Do they not know the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God? Immorality is no longer a sin, it is a right apparently. Shame on Marquette. Sexual perversion is the ultimate rebellion against God. Read Leviticus 18, 22 and 23. Leadership will be judged more harshly by God. Shame on Marquette. You have become a temple of sexual humanism, following a model of cultural Marxism.
ReplyDeleteYou folks are all over-thinking this.
ReplyDeleteRead LOST in the DIN: Why Your Opinion on Politics and Religion Means Nothing, and mine means even less, by Henry Edward Fool.
Read the INTRO, and you may see what I mean.
ReplyDeleteI request the bishop review whether or not Marquette University deserves to be called a Catholic University. I ask this review under the guise of Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html
I request the review based on the classroom teachings of Cheryl Abbate and the reaction of the University staff upon reviewing her teachings.
The school allows teaching against Catholic Doctrine and supports its teachers that do so.
The school also allows and supports the subversion of free speech and the discussion of Catholic ideals set forth by the Holy Church for centuries.
How can we expect our children to be closer to our Lord Jesus Christ when our own learning centers, build and commissioned to teach under His name, refuse to allow His teaching to be taught.
How does the Holy Church itself have a future when we allow an institution, built with the Churches blessing, preach a secular agenda and shut out the Holy Words of the Church itself?
I don't understand how it can be so hard for people to see the real issue here. This is about rights. A right to speak your mind about something. Even if it sounds "ridiculous" to someone else. Yet, we have people like abbate exercising her right to voice her belief while silencing another's. Given her position is an abuse of power I might add. McAdams is exposing this fact in a blog. He is being targeted not only for freedom of speech (His views on the matter), but defending the very subject that the issue surrounds on. Now somehow, he is the victim for defending the victim. Why? because he is being investigated for "harassment"? I love how English terminology can be conveniently twisted to fit political motives. McAdams calling someone out for foul play Is not harassment! If I see someone stealing something from someone and announce it...is that harassment? In this case Abbate is stealing the student's right to challenge her view of a matter. She is also falsely accusing McAdams of harassment for calling her out on it. In other words, Nobody can override her classroom policy of dictatorship without consequence. Lets say this entire situation was the other way around and someone in the classroom tried to defend gay marriage, and was silenced for being a "heterophobe" by a conservative who was against gay marriage, it still wouldn't be right. If McAdams is not allowed to express opposition (by defending someone who is in opposition to Abbate), Then how does Abbate get to express opposition (by declaring someone homophobic therefore silencing them on that premise)? The opposition comments on this page towards McAdams are not only hypocritical to his cause, but also deviate from the root issue. McAdams, you did nothing wrong. I support you 100% and from all the evidence I've gathered seem to be of good intent and doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI think the gay rights agenda is the McCarthyism of the present generation. "The philosophy of the left is not liberal, its radical and oppressive." I read that somewhere and wholeheartedly agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI definitely recommend that everyone get your kids out of the public schools and educate them yourselves, using computers and the Internet and the free and open source education that is increasingly available. The school room in our houses will be like a Star Trek holodecks. The walls will be LED video screens. We'll have surround video, to go with our surround sound.
Mothers are obviously the primary teachers of children. A father could take the lead in home education, I just don't think he would be as good a teacher as the mother. That female consciousness is a very important influence in our child development. Just like the male consciousness is a vitally important influence in our child development.
This is one subject that I agree with the Muslims about. In fact, I agree with the Muslims about most things, except forcing anyone to believe anything or terrorism or anything like that. They seem to be suffering the same phase of development that the Christians suffered when they were burning witches and terrorizing the aboriginal peoples of the world.
Secular humanism is a half truth. Religion is humanist. Its for the benefit of humans. The only thing that is not sacred is selfish ambition. Islam means Submission. Jihad means our inner struggle to submit to God, instead of following our own animal passion, our own selfish ambition. That's the essence of education, the difference between an animal and a civilized human being.
I graduated Fordham College, another Jesuit school, "cum laude" in 1959 with a B.S. in physics, a so-called "hard science." Fordham hadn't graduated a magna cum laude in 5 years as I recall and no one knew when they had last graduated a "summa." "Egregia cum laudes" were a dime a dozen; all that was needed was to be in the honors program, spend a semester abroad, and write a toy thesis. But to be awarded "traditional" honors required a specific grade-point average: 90.00-92.99 for a "cum laude," 93.00-94.99 for a "magna," and 95.00 and up for a "summa." At Fordham I was required to take enough philosophy courses to qualify as a philosophy major at most universities. This was education in the Jesuit tradition and I credit it with making me the man I have become.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, Jesuit education at Fordham has been whittled down to compete with "ordinary" American universities. Fordham has become "politically correct" (as Marquette apparantly has) and can hardly be distinguished from academia in general. I read the alumni newsletter with concern and disgust. I see the university lauding people with whose political and religious philosophies I strongly disagree so I stopped supporting Fordham financially at a time in life when I am finally able to do so.
Now for the good part (I hope!). When the bright-eyed enthusiastic Freshmen and Sophomores call for a donation I usually end up having a lengthy "then-and-now" conversation with them. I've noticed a tendency on their part to acknowledge that Fordham had lost its way for a time but now is finding its way back to traditional Jesuit education. So inspired by hope, I open my purse a bit more. This country needs a higher-education system that encourages free discourse. The one thing the Jebbies drummed into me 55 years ago was to question ... to question everything ... to search for truth wherever it can be found. Thank God Marquette has a courageous, thinking professor with an open mind!
Professor McAdams you've made your most "correct observation", and, valid point, that in the PC world there seems to only be One Side Of A Coin that allows those in agreement with Leftist Ideologies to use that "Coin" to get a "Pass" on any positions they take against their opposition to a virtual one sided conversation, which is; "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is a racist, a Nazi, a bigot, and most certainly a homophobic right wing conspirator".
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed at how having a free mind constitutes racism, bigotry, and homophobia. Especially because it's the "Liberals" that called for "Equality" in the first place.
However, now that they have their "equality" they are now seeking "domination" by silencing any opposition.
This is like the "Camel's Nose In The Tent".
What will the result of this be?
Will straight people start getting beat up as they walk down a street now? Is that the "equality" they were seeking? Same as a black person who now wants to Hang Whites because of past wrongs done to the black population.....is that what they mean by "equality"??
Of course, it's EASY to cherry pick an argument to make the opposition seem to be "HYPOCRITES"....yet, that's not what I've heard from You Professor McAdams.
In fact, I've heard the complete opposite from you.
I'm hearing "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".....a policy that doesn't sit well with Liberals who are quick to point out what appears to be "Flaws" in Teaching, when in fact they are merely "Options" given to students to "MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES" - Not "Dictatorships", or Mandatory Thoughts being forced on anyone.
What I hear on the Liberal side is..."Don't even suggest that we can even debate the subject" - The matter is a closed as their right to "Equality".....notice; "THEIR RIGHT" to equality!!
What happened to "OUR RIGHTS TO EQUALITY"??....Did we give that up when we SUBMITTED to "THEIR RIGHTS"?
To say the least, I am confused.
I thought we were supposed to be "Progressing"......instead, we are simply CHANGING DICTATORS.
So, maybe it is better to SHUT YOUR MOUTH. At least this way you can avoid all opposition.
Professor McAdams you've made your most "correct observation", and, valid point, that in the PC world there seems to only be One Side Of A Coin that allows those in agreement with Leftist Ideologies to use that "Coin" to get a "Pass" on any positions they take against their opposition to a virtual one sided conversation, which is; "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is a racist, a Nazi, a bigot, and most certainly a homophobic right wing conspirator".
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed at how having a free mind constitutes racism, bigotry, and homophobia. Especially because it's the "Liberals" that called for "Equality" in the first place.
However, now that they have their "equality" they are now seeking "domination" by silencing any opposition.
This is like the "Camel's Nose In The Tent".
What will the result of this be?
Will straight people start getting beat up as they walk down a street now? Is that the "equality" they were seeking? Same as a black person who now wants to Hang Whites because of past wrongs done to the black population.....is that what they mean by "equality"??
Of course, it's EASY to cherry pick an argument to make the opposition seem to be "HYPOCRITES"....yet, that's not what I've heard from You Professor McAdams.
In fact, I've heard the complete opposite from you.
I'm hearing "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".....a policy that doesn't sit well with Liberals who are quick to point out what appears to be "Flaws" in Teaching, when in fact they are merely "Options" given to students to "MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES" - Not "Dictatorships", or Mandatory Thoughts being forced on anyone.
What I hear on the Liberal side is..."Don't even suggest that we can even debate the subject" - The matter is a closed as their right to "Equality".....notice; "THEIR RIGHT" to equality!!
What happened to "OUR RIGHTS TO EQUALITY"??....Did we give that up when we SUBMITTED to "THEIR RIGHTS"?
To say the least, I am confused.
I thought we were supposed to be "Progressing"......instead, we are simply CHANGING DICTATORS.
So, maybe it is better to SHUT YOUR MOUTH. At least this way you can avoid all opposition.
Professor McAdams you've made your most "correct observation", and, valid point, that in the PC world there seems to only be One Side Of A Coin that allows those in agreement with Leftist Ideologies to use that "Coin" to get a "Pass" on any positions they take against their opposition to a virtual one sided conversation, which is; "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is a racist, a Nazi, a bigot, and most certainly a homophobic right wing conspirator".
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed at how having a free mind constitutes racism, bigotry, and homophobia. Especially because it's the "Liberals" that called for "Equality" in the first place.
However, now that they have their "equality" they are now seeking "domination" by silencing any opposition.
This is like the "Camel's Nose In The Tent".
What will the result of this be?
Will straight people start getting beat up as they walk down a street now? Is that the "equality" they were seeking? Same as a black person who now wants to Hang Whites because of past wrongs done to the black population.....is that what they mean by "equality"??
Of course, it's EASY to cherry pick an argument to make the opposition seem to be "HYPOCRITES"....yet, that's not what I've heard from You Professor McAdams.
In fact, I've heard the complete opposite from you.
I'm hearing "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".....a policy that doesn't sit well with Liberals who are quick to point out what appears to be "Flaws" in Teaching, when in fact they are merely "Options" given to students to "MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES" - Not "Dictatorships", or Mandatory Thoughts being forced on anyone.
What I hear on the Liberal side is..."Don't even suggest that we can even debate the subject" - The matter is as closed as their right to "Equality".....notice; "THEIR RIGHT" to equality!!
What happened to "OUR RIGHTS TO EQUALITY"??....Did we give that up when we SUBMITTED to "THEIR RIGHTS"?
To say the least, I am confused.
I thought we were supposed to be "Progressing"......instead, we are simply CHANGING DICTATORS.
So, maybe it is better to SHUT YOUR MOUTH. At least this way you can avoid all opposition.
Professor McAdams you've made your most "correct observation", and, valid point, that in the PC world there seems to only be One Side Of A Coin that allows those in agreement with Leftist Ideologies to use that "Coin" to get a "Pass" on any positions they take against their opposition to a virtual one sided conversation, which is; "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is a racist, a Nazi, a bigot, and most certainly a homophobic right wing conspirator".
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed at how having a free mind constitutes racism, bigotry, and homophobia. Especially because it's the "Liberals" that called for "Equality" in the first place.
However, now that they have their "equality" they are now seeking "domination" by silencing any opposition.
This is like the "Camel's Nose In The Tent".
What will the result of this be?
Will straight people start getting beat up as they walk down a street now? Is that the "equality" they were seeking? Same as a black person who now wants to Hang Whites because of past wrongs done to the black population.....is that what they mean by "equality"??
Of course, it's EASY to cherry pick an argument to make the opposition seem to be "HYPOCRITES"....yet, that's not what I've heard from You Professor McAdams.
In fact, I've heard the complete opposite from you.
I'm hearing "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".....a policy that doesn't sit well with Liberals who are quick to point out what appears to be "Flaws" in Teaching, when in fact they are merely "Options" given to students to "MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES" - Not "Dictatorships", or Mandatory Thoughts being forced on anyone.
What I hear on the Liberal side is..."Don't even suggest that we can even debate the subject" - The matter is a closed as their right to "Equality".....notice; "THEIR RIGHT" to equality!!
What happened to "OUR RIGHTS TO EQUALITY"??....Did we give that up when we SUBMITTED to "THEIR RIGHTS"?
To say the least, I am confused.
I thought we were supposed to be "Progressing"......instead, we are simply CHANGING DICTATORS.
So, maybe it is better to SHUT YOUR MOUTH. At least this way you can avoid all opposition.
"Gilder has also said that men are innately superior workers and women are biologically not as capable 'in the great creative ventures outside the family circle.'"
ReplyDeleteFrom the historic lists of the greatest composers of Western classical music, or the Nobel prize winners in physics, to the current list of grandmasters of chess, or the roster of the NFL, to the recent decision of the FDNY to drop the physical test requirement, an argument can be made that Gilder has a point. Shouldn't the task be to debate the substance of what Gilder said, rather than the fact that Gilder said it?