What Marquette Could Have Done, But Didn’t

From Margot Cleveland, writing in The Federalist: an analysis of our recent Wisconsin Supreme Court victory. Cleveland sides with us and the court, and explains:

Next, the court considered whether Marquette had “discretionary cause” to suspend McAdams. The court began by citing the relevant contractual provisions, which defined “discretionary cause” as conduct that “clearly and substantially fail to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence which generally characterizes University faculties.”

However, as the court highlighted, the faculty contract expressly stated that discretionary cause will not “be interpreted so as to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” The court then methodically considered Marquette’s rationale for suspending McAdams, stressing that it was McAdams’ conduct—and not the response of third parties—that mattered, explaining:

Just because vile commentary followed the blog post does not mean the blog post instigated or invited the vileness. The University must identify which part of the blog post is supposed to have been responsible for eliciting the offensive remarks. It did not even attempt to do so. Our review of the blog post reveals that it makes no ad hominem attack on Instructor Abbate, nor does it invite readers to be uncivil to her, either explicitly or implicitly. Because the University’s logical fallacy represents the entirety of its assertion that Dr. McAdams wrote the blog post to subject Instructor Abbate to contempt, we must reject it.

But Cleveland goes on to highlight the fundamental social problems behind this whole incident:

Further, Marquette’s attempt to hold McAdams responsible for threats meted out by third parties upends academic freedom. It implies a faculty member must self-censor and limit criticism out of a fear that others will respond with threats or even violence. Yet nothing McAdams wrote reeked of an incitement to harassment or violence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court published the entire blog post and a quick read confirms the court’s view that McAdams had not invited the vile emails Abbate received.

Yet Abbate did receive emails that made her fear for her safety. I am not unsympathic to Abbate’s concerns, and few conservative journalists or politicians would be. But McAdams isn’t the problem. The problem is a society that teaches that words spoken in a classroom debate are so offensive that they must be silenced; a society that resorts to doxxing to silence speech instead of countering speech; and a society that views harassment and violence as appropriate responses to “offensive” speech.

This says nothing about McAdams, who criticized Abbate on the merits of her conduct, and everything about the decline of civility facing our country.

What Marquette Could Have Done

Cleveland goes on to highlight a grain of truth in the two leftist justices’ dissent.

Two Wisconsin Supreme Court justices dissented from the majority’s decision in favor of McAdams. The dissent merits consideration, not because of the faulty analysis of McAdams’ case, but because of the helpful discussion of academic freedom.

Many wrongly believe academic freedom rests solely with faculty members, but the dissent, authored by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, highlights that academic freedom includes two components: academic freedom of the faculty and academic freedom of the institution. Marquette’s “institutional academic freedom is inclusive of four ‘essential freedoms’: ‘to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.’“

As a Catholic, Jesuit institution, Marquette possesses the right to exercise these four “essential freedoms” consistent with its guiding values, described by the dissent as the “holistic development of students” and a “commitment to the Jesuit tradition and Catholic social teaching.” Marquette could, then, have hired only faculty members willing to instruct students consistent with the university’s professed Catholic mission, in which case it could fire faculty members who do not live up to that commitment.

But it didn’t, as is obvious from the university’s decision to employ an instructor who, in contradiction of clear church teaching, taught students that “everybody agrees” on “gay rights.” Marquette instead promised faculty members the right to individual academic freedom, without regard to the university’s Catholic character. By committing itself “not to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms,” Marquette forfeited its right to rein in McAdams’ speech as purportedly contrary to the university’s mission.

In its news release, Marquette hinted that it intends to reassert its institutional right to academic freedom, explaining that “in light of today’s decision, Marquette will work with its faculty to re-examine its policies, with the goal of providing every assurance possible that this never happens again” (emphasis added). Of course, by “this,” Marquette means public criticism of an instructor. If only the Jesuit university meant assuring faculty members do not silence student speech, especially speech defending Catholic teaching against a professor’s heresy. That is something I could get behind.

Marquette claims the right to hire “for mission.” This means Marquette has the right to hire people loyal to Catholic teaching, and even to prefer practicing Catholics.

This is perfectly consistent with academic freedom if, once hired, faculty are free to write and speak as they please. In some departments, this has largely been ignored. In Political Science we have always hired on the basis of pure scholarly credentials. This blogger has been as guilty of that as anybody else in the department.

In many departments, hiring is anti-mission. Somebody who opposes abortion, or gay marriage, or who believes homosexual acts are illicit would be quickly vetoed in the job search.

If Marquette is unwilling to hire for mission (which it certainly is), it could at least demand that faculty be tolerant of arguments on different sides of an issue. But in fact, Marquette doesn’t mind politically incorrect arguments being shut up — even when those arguments support Catholic teaching.

The Infrastructure of Political Correctness at Marquette

From the Louis Joliet Society, a blog post that takes off from the fact that Marquette is going to impose a five percent tuition increase, in spite of the fact that inflation has been running at 2.5 percent.

And what is the reason? Not to provide more scholarship money for students. Not to pay for more faculty lines, so that students can have smaller classes, more attention from faculty and more class choices.

No, a large part is to support a massive infrastructure in political correctness.

For starters, Marquette’s Office of the Provost carries a staff of at least 65 individuals, many of whom are presumably well-compensated, holding titles like vice-provost, vice-president, executive director and dean. Clearly, a number of the functions performed by these individuals are entirely legitimate for the successful administration of the university. But, in some cases, we have our doubts. 

For example, one entity under the Provost’s watch is the Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. Myers created this office in 2015 “to elevate the importance of equity, diversity and inclusion at Marquette.” But, alas, despite a lengthy and lofty strategic plan and numerous initiatives and programs, Marquette is still pretty much all white and evidently, still racist (also here and here). The office’s Hispanic Initiatives include resources for undocumented students, not the least of which are university-funded grants and scholarships for non-citizens. The Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion also houses Marquette’s Title IX coordinator who is presumably responsible for selecting the LGBTQ-agenda advancing Title IX vendor employed by the university.

Another entity under the Provost’s office is the Division of Student Affairs. While the division has been around for quite some time, Myers expanded it in 2015 to include a new LGBTQ Resource Center (host of the infamous Pride Prom). Also added to the division in 2015 was the Office of Intercultural Engagement, which, as far as we can tell, is a source of institutional reinforcement and reiteration of the race and LGBTQ agendas on campus, and is not to be confused with the CENTER for Intercultural Engagement which provides still more reinforcement and reiteration of the race and LGBTQ agendas on campus. Lastly, under the Division of Student Affairs is the Office of Residence Life, which championed the introduction of “transgendered bathrooms” at Marquette in 2015 and was recently exposed for forcing Resident Assistants to participate in Leftist “social justice” indoctrination in the student dorms. 

Other entities under the Provosts Office include the Office of Community Engagement and Social Responsibility, created in 2016 as “a central clearinghouse for community engagement activities and promotion of the scholarship of engagement.” Got it? As an interesting aside, the Executive Director of the Office of Community Engagement, Dan Bergen, serves on the board of directors of the Cream City Foundation, an organization whose mission is to “mobilize philanthropic resources by harnessing the pride, passion, and commitment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their allies to advance the human rights and respond to the human needs of LGBTQ+ people in Southeastern Wisconsin.” As for what the Office of Community Engagement has actually accomplished in its two years of existence is anybody’s guess; all activities listed on its webpage appear to have already been in motion by 2016. 

Marquette’s Center for Teaching and Learning is also under the auspices of the Office of the Provost. This center is charged with teaching Marquette teachers how to teach. It is also charged with teaching non-Catholic and under-catechized faculty and staff about the history and importance of Catholic higher education. The director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, however, is openly homosexual. So much for Catholic teaching.

Also inaugurated by Provost Myers in 2015, but not as part of his office, is the new and improved Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies (to replace the ignominious and disastrous Gender and Sexualities Resource Center). Like the Provost’s LGBTQ Center, Office of Intercultural Engagement and Center for Intercultural Engagement, this center also provides institutional reinforcement and reiteration of race and LGBTQ agendas on campus. (Are we seeing a pattern here?) 

We move now to the Office of Mission and Ministry. This office is, presumably, most directly charged with preserving and advancing Marquette’s Catholic identity. And yet, despite some good efforts, through the Office of Mission and Ministry we get: anti-Catholic Marquette Mission Weeks, LGBTQ Glitter Ashes on Ash Wednesday, LGBTQ Masses, LGBTQ+ prayer services, LGBTQ indoctrination from the university’s Center for Ignatian Spirituality, and a Center for Peacemaking which for nearly ten years has been little more than a training center for progressive political activism.

The post summarizes by asking:

• How much do all these positions, offices and activities cost and where does the money to pay for them come from?
• What demonstrable value do they bring to the education of students or the betterment of Marquette’s culture as a Catholic, Jesuit university?
• Why does a Catholic university invest so heavily in things that have little to do with/are often contrary to its Catholic identity?
• Why should students not transfer to public colleges and universities which offer the same secularized higher education at half or less the cost?

In the meantime, however, you and your families better get busy finding those extra tuition dollars.

Conclusion

It’s typical of higher education today that university bureaucrats build a huge bureaucracy dedicated to political correctness. It’s slightly less expected that a large part of that bureaucracy at a “Catholic university” should be engaged in trashing Catholic teaching. But only slightly.

Two things are behind this trend. First, there is the felt need by campus bureaucrats to pander to every politically correct victim group on campus. Such groups will be supported by leftist faculty capable of making noise if the demands are not acceded to.

Secondly, all bureaucrats want to build their little empires. But the faculty are never the “empire” of any bureaucrat — faculty control their own affairs.

So to build an empire, you need lots of “initiatives” and staff to “implement” those “initiatives.”

This quickly leads to whole university offices where most of the staff are involved, not in some useful work, but in pushing political correctness.

Marian Grotto at Marquette University?

From the Louis Joliet Society, which is committed to holding Marquette to its claimed Catholic mission, an appeal for a Marian Grotto:

St. Ignatius of Loyola was intensely devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was the impetus of his conversion, his lifelong devotion to Christ and his founding of the Society of Jesus. He was often referred to as a “Soldier of Mary” and “The Holy Knight of Mary.”

Ignatius knew intimately the incomparable power of the Blessed Mother for captivating souls, protecting them from evil and leading them to Jesus Christ, her Divine Son. For this reason, he consecrated himself and his religious order to “Mary, Queen of the Society of Jesus.”

Marquette University is a Jesuit university entrusted with the formation of the minds and hearts of young men and women. Imparting this most fundamental component of Ignatian Catholic spirituality – Marian devotion – is critical to its mission. The Louis Joliet Society proposes that Marquette do so through the creation of a Marian Grotto on campus as do other Catholic universities (above photo - the Beaudry Shrine at John Carroll University), honoring Our Lady with beautiful spaces dedicated to her likeness where students can pray for her motherly protection, comfort and intercession.

This, of course, is pure symbolism, and nothing about having a Marian Grotto would prevent Marquette from continuing to be a university where opposition to gay marriage is frowned upon, if not outright forbidden. Nothing would prevent leftist centers of activism like the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center that decorated an entire wall with a fawning mural of Assata Shakur, terrorist and cop killer.

But at least, it would be the right kind of symbolism.

It would very much contrast with the mere symbolism of Marquette designating “gender neutral restrooms.” It turns out that only single use bathrooms on the ground floors of several dorms were designated “gender neutral,” but this was in flat contradiction to Catholic teaching on gender theory. The Church (including the very fashionable Pope Francis) has roundly condemned the notion that you can be any sex you want to be. But Marquette didn’t care.

So we wish the Louis Joliet Society well on this initiative. Moving things in the right direction, even in a minor way, is better than what has been happening.

Warrior Blogger on Vicki McKenna / May 2, 2016

Here we are on the Vicki McKenna show on May 2, shortly after announcing that we are filing a lawsuit against Marquette, demanding reinstatement and monetary damages for their attempt to fire us.

Press Conference: Warrior Blogger Will Sue Marquette

Letter to Lovell: Gay Marriage Can Be Discussed

President Michael R. Lovell
Office of the President
Marquette University
1250 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53233

Dear President Lovell:

I have read with dismay the controversy at Marquette University over the question of whether a student can raise objections or even discuss the question of same-sex marriage at your university. The claim of the teaching assistant, Ms. Abbate, is that some gay student may be upset if the issue is discussed. Her position was challenged by Prof. McAdams and he is the one who got suspended. Sir, you have suspended the wrong person. This is especially ironic since the Catholic Church has been and is vocally opposed to same-sex marriage.

The reasoning here is faulty: Are you allowed to object to abortion at Marquette, knowing that a feminist might be unhappy? The typical tactic of the left—the left that has captured the humanities at most American universities—is not to debate issues, but to intimidate and silence those whose views do not align with theirs. It is not a question of arguing against those with a different position, it is a matter of silencing them.

I will quote your mission statement because it is so relevant here:

As a Catholic university, we are committed to the unfettered pursuit of truth under the mutually illuminating powers of human intelligence and Christian faith. Our Catholic identity is expressed in our choices of curricula, our sponsorship of programs and activities devoted to the cultivation of our religious character, our ecumenical outlook, and our support of Catholic beliefs and values. Precisely because Catholicism at its best seeks to be inclusive, we are open to all who share our mission and seek the truth about God and the world, and we are firmly committed to academic freedom as the necessary precondition for that search. We welcome and benefit enormously from the diversity of seekers within our ranks, even as we freely choose and celebrate our own Catholic identity.

I am a graduate of [redacted] and have been teaching at a large state university for the past 48 years. I teach an Introduction to Moral Philosophy course each semester. We discuss these four topics: Abortion, Euthanasia, Death Penalty, and Sex and Marriage. We read philosophers and analyze Supreme Court decisions on each of these topics. With respect to same-sex marriage, we read Goodridge v Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the first state supreme court decision overturning the Massachusetts prohibition of same-sex marriage, both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion of Justice Martha Sosman who gives vigorous objection to the majority opinion and defends marriage as between a man and a woman. We also read Bowers v Hardwick in which the U. S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Georgia statutes criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Then, we read a later case, Lawrence v Texas in which Justice Blackmun’s dissent in Bowers became the majority opinion in Lawrence. This case overturned Texas’ statute banning homosexual sodomy.

I put in this detail because I have never had a gay or lesbian student, or any other student, object to the open and spirited debate over abortion, marriage, sex, or social arrangements. In other words, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and sex and marriage can and should be discussed in a university ethics class. Most ethics textbooks have chapters on these topics.

Going to a university, especially a Catholic university, should never mean that you will not hear things you do not agree with or things which may challenge your views or things that may even hurt your feelings. Do you admit Protestant students? How do they feel when Catholic doctrine is taught? A university is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where we challenge each other to give reasons and use persuasion, all done in a civil manner. Someone in your administration or even you yourself should instruct Ms. Abbate the meaning of free speech, academic freedom, and the purpose of a university. Better yet, have her read your University Mission Statement. Do not give in to the totalitarianism of controlling speech under the guise that someone may have his or her feelings hurt or that any speech that does not accord with the catechism of the politically correct is “hate speech.” It is hard for me to believe that I can teach things and allow arguments in a state university that are forbidden in a Catholic university, especially when the forbidden discussions are in accord with Catholic doctrine.

Best wishes,

[Name Withheld]

[The writer notes that he does “not want to be dragged personally into the New Spanish Inquisition.”]

In fact, it is perfectly plausible that a large state university might be more open to a discussion of diverse ideas about sexuality than the nominally Catholic Marquette, just as places like the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Texas A & M have more vital Catholic ministries than does Marquette.

There is a particular type of parochialism that afflicts the secularized “Catholic” institutions, but it it not Catholic parochialism. It’s the parochialism that believes it has right to enforce an orthodoxy by authoritarian top-down means. But it’s not a Catholic orthodoxy being enforced, but rather secular political correctness.

Still More Coverage of Marquette Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger

First, from the John William Pope Center, “At Marquette, Honesty, Free Speech, and Tenure No Match for Political Correctness.” Read the whole thing, but one key quote is:

One lesson we learn from this dispute is that faculty contracts and tenure are no shield against vengeful leftist academics. The Marquette administration should have immediately realized that McAdams was perfectly within his rights and told those who were calling for his head to go to their keyboards and argue with him. Instead, it chose to lead the mob.

Another lesson is that academic freedom is on thin ice, at least at some of our institutions. It’s particularly thin under the feet of students and faculty members who dare to contest politically correct ideas. If any Marquette professor had criticized McAdams for his views or the way he treated a student, there would have been no repercussions: no administrative rebuke, no banishment, no suspension, no threatened termination.

In fact, we have been attacked by leftist faculty, and of course that was fine with Marquette.

But free speech on campus has become like the equality of animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm. All animals were supposedly equal, but, once the revolution took over, some were more equal than others. Similarly at Marquette, faculty members are supposed to have academic freedom, but some are more free than others.

Then we have the Weekly Standard. Among many excellent observations we have these:

One might expect [Abbate’s] sort of bullying from, say, a certain Mizzou ex-faculty member. But Marquette is ostensibly a Jesuit institution. Are views held by, for example, the pope out of bounds at a Catholic college? Because for all Pope Francis’s moves toward a less judgmental tone on social issues, he has not reversed the church’s position on same-sex marriage. Speaking last year in the Philippines, the pope said the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage.” He warned that society was “tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”

What could be more confusing than an ethics class at a Catholic university in which discussion of a church doctrine—defense of traditional marriage—is verboten?

And then:

Once upon a time, universities were animated by the classical liberal belief that learning and knowledge, let alone liberty, are best served by robust debate. As John Stuart Mill wrote, it “is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” Dogma is the alternative.

Marquette, its administrators, and faculty would be wise to recall how this inquisition started: An instructor told a student that a legitimate debate could not be held because it would cause offense. The college seems determined to compound the original error by punishing the professor who had the courage to call attention to this betrayal of intellectual freedom.

Marquette’s Feckless Response When Confronted By Concerned Alum

Marquette’s attempt to fire this blogger has gone over quite poorly with a fair number of alumni, and some (we don’t know how many, but have gotten copies of several communications) have written to express their disgust. And often, to tell the University not to ask for money again.

One such alumnus shared the letter (it is obviously a form letter) he got in return.

President Lovell has asked me to reply on his behalf to your recent letter regarding Professor McAdams. While we have complied with your request to remove your name from our mailing lists, I would like to provide a fuller accounting than what has been disseminated in media reports. First, please know that your alma mater has not abandoned its Catholic principles and in fact has been guided by them during this challenging situation.

The principle at stake here has always been behavior, not free speech. The topic of marriage may have initiated the situation but it had nothing to do with subsequent events or the substance of what happened to our student. I have enclosed a recent paper that clarifies Marquette’s position, as well as Dr. Lovell’s “A Call for Decency” message. Online at http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/, you will find additional facts and endorsements and a link to an article from U.S. Catholic, one of the country’s most respected Catholic magazines. I think you will find this article compelling as it lays out facts and a viewpoint that have not been carried by most media outlets reporting on this story.

Let me reinforce, [redacted], that our Catholic, Jesuit identity is at the heart of all we do, our students are our central concern, and our guiding values and mission will not be compromised by political correctness. Marquette’s position is that without respect and decency, we cannot have robust discourse and intellectual inquiry — in short, we cannot be a great university. I hope you get a sense of this in the enclosed articles. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional concerns.

Sincerely,

Michael VanDerhoef, Jour ‘84
Vice President, University Advancement

The dishonesty here would be comical, did this letter not come from a once-decent university that was really Catholic and really provided a Jesuit education.

Let’s take it piece at a time (Marquette’s statements in sans-serif type):

The principle at stake here has always been behavior, not free speech.

But our “behavior” was a blog post. If a blog post isn’t speech, what is it? If speech that Marquette doesn’t like somehow becomes “behavior,” then academic freedom means nothing.

Dr. Lovell’s “A Call for Decency” message

Somehow “decency” did not involve decent treatment of an undergraduate who was demeaned and bullied by a graduate Philosophy instructor. The student was greeted with hostility by Marquette officials when he complained of his treatment, and the instructor (Cheryl Abbate) was supported in her intolerant attitudes.

Why the hostility? Quite simply, Marquette officials apparently agreed with Abbate that opposition to gay marriage should not be allowed to be expressed at Marquette.

a link to an article from U.S. Catholic, one of the country’s most respected Catholic magazines

The liberal U.S. Catholic is in fact the only Catholic publication that has supported Marquette in this. As noted by the Louis Joliet Society:

A hastily assembled blog post on the website of a magazine called “U.S. Catholic” is not likely to persuade skeptics that there is anything “Catholic” in Marquette’s decision- making in this case, particularly given the reams of analysis and commentary to the contrary, much of it from weighty Catholic/Christian publications as well. (For starters, see here, here, here, here, here and here.)

And then:

our guiding values and mission will not be compromised by political correctness

Again, the Louis Joliet Society has a list of the things that Marquette has done that can only be characterized as politically correct. Among those they list:

• Gay and Lesbian Mass.
• Planned Parenthood advertising free STD tests in the Alumni Memorial Union.
• Bras, underwear, tampons, feminine pads, birth control pills, condoms and a vibrator on display in Marquette’s Alumni Memorial Union to promote the University’s eighth production of “The Vagina Monologues.”
• A Gender Regime increasingly hostile to Catholic teaching.
• Establishment of a full blown Marquette LGBTQ Center.
• Hosting a transgender conference on campus.
• Dishonesty regarding Marquette’s Transgender bathrooms.
• Special reception for LGBT alumni.
• Scholarships limited to gay and lesbian students.
• Handing out birth control to students.
• Replacing pro-life awareness activities with LGBTQ activities over the course of October, “Respect for Life Month.”
• Hypocrisy in honoring/rescinding honorary degrees.
• Recruiting staff for LGBTQ Resource Center in Gay and Lesbian magazine.
• Endorsing the notion that those who oppose gay “marriage” should be silenced.

While most of the political correctness on campus seems to revolve around sex and gender issues, we have things such as a mural honoring one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists. Since she is a black woman, apparently it doesn’t matter too much that she’s a murderer. Then we have Marquette’s support for an extreme anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian position.

Marquette’s position is that without respect and decency, we cannot have robust discourse and intellectual inquiry — in short, we cannot be a great university.

Apparently, we can be a great university without freedom of expression. At least, when that free expression discomforts the administration and intolerant leftist members of the faculty.

But of course, nothing about our blog post was uncivil — that is unless any criticism of the politically correct intolerant left is automatically uncivil.

That, however, seems to be what the Marquette administration believes.

Marquette Warrior on Cream City Catholic

Marquette’s Defensive, Evasive and Dishonest Attack on the Warrior Blogger

Marquette today came out with an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about our case. It’s an amazing collection of evasion, dissembling, and outright falsehood.

Let’s analyze it piece by piece (Marquette’s statement in sans serif typeface):

Dr. McAdams disagreed with the way one of our graduate students led a classroom discussion.

We “disagreed” with a teacher who told a student that he could not express opposition to gay marriage because doing so would be “homophobic,” and would “offend” any gay student in class. But Marquette implies this was merely some disagreement about pedagogical philosophy.

Instead of expressing those concerns through established internal channels, he chose to blog about our graduate student . . .

In the first place, the undergraduate student had attempted to “raise the concern” (note the euphemistic way mistreatment of a student is described) with the Arts & Sciences office, and then was referred to the Philosophy Department. There he was met with hostility, and received no redress at all.

Of course, bureaucrats would like all cases of misconduct to be quietly dealt with through “internal channels.” This is the way the Catholic Church handled the priestly sex abuse crisis.

Just how did that work out?

Keeping misconduct quiet removes the incentive for the bureaucrats to fix the problem. Further, the public has a right to know that at Marquette, a supposed “Catholic university,” this kind of abuse could happen.

— publicly shaming her,

What Lovell calls “public shaming” was simply journalism. Any reporting of misconduct could be called “public shaming.”

For example, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were shown on video voicing a racist chant on a bus. This was widely reported, and some of the fraternity members received death threats.

Was the media guilty of “public shaming?”

Had we, for example, written about a male professor who sexually harassed a female student, it’s inconceivable that we would be charged with “shaming” the professor.

questioning her values

Questioning the values of an instructor who said that certain opinions about marriage (and indeed the “opinions” of the Catholic Church) could not be expressed in a Marquette classroom? Absolutely!

Why does Marquette not question such “values?”

and including a link to her contact information.

Untrue. We included a link to her blog, which happened to contain her contact information (something we had not even noticed when we put up the post). The purpose of the link was obvious from the context. As we noted:

Aside from the audio, it’s easy to see how Abbate would have said what we reported. Her blog is titled “Thoughts from a Vegan Feminist Philosopher.” Some of the stuff seems quirky and bland, such as her criticism for a Catholic parish for having a pig wrestling contest.

Less benign is her essay titled “Yes All Men…Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape.” Yes, it’s a common theme among feminists and Exhibit One of the reality that hard-core feminism is, at root, about sexist antipathy toward males.

And Marquette continues:

He sought opportunities to amplify his public shaming of her on cable news and talk radio.

When we came under attack from Abbate and her allies, we defended ourself in the media. This was supposedly bad.

Through those actions, he exposed her to a constant stream of threats and hateful messages.

In fact, she received no threats, as she herself admitted.

She did receive some nasty e-mails. But nobody can report unfavorable information about anybody without the possibility of some jerks writing them and saying abusive things. This had never happened before in the ten-year history of our blog.

Again, should the media have declined to report the misconduct of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon members (see above)? A typical case in the media is when some high school teacher has sex with a student. The name of the teacher is always mentioned.

Has Dr. McAdams been fired?

No. He has been suspended without pay but with benefits through the fall semester of the 2016-17 academic year, in accordance with the Faculty Hearing Committee’s unanimous recommendation, and given a clear path that would facilitate his return to campus. Before returning to the faculty, he must provide an assurance that he will not continue behaviors that harm others within the Marquette community.

The “assurance” is a demand that the Faculty Hearing Committee did not make: that we apologize and take a loyalty oath. To be specific, Lovell demanded:

• Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee.
• Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values.
• Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.

As for “behaviors that harm others:” this apparently means any blogging that criticizes anybody at Marquette or reveals any misconduct at Marquette. In other words, the demand is that we renounce our right to academic freedom.

Is this issue about freedom of speech or academic freedom?

Where Dr. McAdams crossed the line is when he launched a personal attack against a student, subjecting her to threats and hateful messages.

Lovell is calling our reporting on misconduct by a graduate instructor a “personal attack.” By this standard, any reporting of misconduct of anybody at Marquette could be called a “personal attack.”

Was Dr. McAdams asked to apologize?

President Lovell explained in his call for decency that Dr. McAdams was asked to take responsibility for his actions and to show remorse for the consequences of his irresponsible conduct. Dr. McAdams was never asked to make a public apology, and never was asked to apologize for any opinion or political view he may hold.

Compare this with the direct quote (above) from Lovell’s letter to us. This level of spin and evasiveness is downright dishonest.

Is this an issue related to Marquette’s Catholic identity?

We have taken the position we have because of our Catholic identity and our values. This issue is about conduct and standing up for a student who was publicly shamed by a professor. U.S. Catholic magazine shared this perspective.

Interesting that they mention liberal U.S. Catholic, which is the only Catholic outlet that has sided with Marquette. Every other one that has dealt with the issue has taken Marquette to task (except for the liberal National Catholic Reporter, which ran a neutral article).

Also, secular outlets, including liberal ones like Slate, the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have criticized Marquette on this issue. So has the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. So has the conservative Wall Street Journal.

Across campus, you can find Marquette’s Catholic identity flourishing.

Right, it is flourishing when students are demeaned and shut up for wanting to argue for the Catholic view of marriage. Or when a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center honors one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.”

Or when Marquette sponsors a “Femsex” seminar in which participants are expected to produce a piece of erotica (read “pornography”) and have a “nonjudgmental” discussion of abortion, pornography and prostitution, and color pictures of female genitalia in the “Cunt Coloring Book.”

Or when instructors are fearful about discussing the Catholic view of marriage because they may be charged with “sexual harassment.”

Or when Marquette “likes” a tweet that demands that opposition to gay marriage be shut up on campus, as “hate speech.”

If this is flourishing, what would languishing look like?

Did Dr. McAdams criticize a fellow instructor, or a student?

The target of Dr. McAdams’ blog was a graduate student instructor. She remains a student first.

And how is she a “student first?” Because that’s convenient for Marquette. The instructor, Cheryl Abbate, was the “Instructor of Record” in the course: she made out the syllabus, she handled the lectures and class discussion, she graded the papers and assigned the grades.

Click to Enlarge

Abbate, at the time of the incident, was 27 years old and in the U.S. military. She had taught the class multiple times previously.

The real “student” was the undergraduate who was bullied because of his views on gay marriage.

The university has established channels in place for faculty members to express concerns. These standard channels of authority, which all university faculty members are expected to follow as a condition of employment as defined by the Faculty Handbook, include an associate dean, dean of the college or the provost.

The Faculty Handbook outlines “channels of authority” which can handle complaints, but there is no rule whatsoever banning the public airing of abuses at Marquette. Any such rule would be at odds with faculty contractual guarantees of academic freedom.

Again, all bureaucrats would prefer that cases of misconduct be kept quiet and internal. But journalists (and that includes faculty bloggers) have no obligation to accommodate them on this.

In fact, where the bureaucrats have failed to address the problem (as they did in this case) or where there is a systemic problem (as politically correct intolerance is at Marquette) there is actually a moral imperative to “go public.”

Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger: Marquette Getting Pounded on Facebook

Marquette posts President Michael Lovell’s grossly hypocritical “A call for decency” attacking this blogger on the Marquette Facebook page, and the comment section explodes.

While a few comments support Lovell, the vast majority pound him for has lack of support for free speech and for the Catholic mission of Marquette.

See this post and the comments under it.

And the criticism of Lovell spills over in comments to posts that have nothing to do with this blogger.

For example, one about “Summer Studies / / Marquette University”

Another example: “See Yourself at Marquette University”

This is significant, since people who visit the Marquette page are not a group self-selected on the basis of their political views. Of course the people who comment on our case on the National Review site or the Breitbart site will tend to agree with us. But it seems those who post on the Marquette Facebook page do too.

One final note: At the moment, there are no “Guest Posts” on the page. There were several, pounding Marquette over its attempt to fire us, and they have been deleted.

Bernard Goldberg: What Happened to Free Speech at Marquette?

From Bernard Goldberg: Yet another article taking Marquette task for its intolerance of speech. Much of it repeats material that is familiar to readers of this blog, but we’ll post some of the money quotes.

The closest things we have to re-education camps in this country are college campuses. In the old Soviet Union, to use but one example of authoritarianism gone wild, if you said the “wrong” thing you might lose your job, your freedom or your life. Here in America, expressing the “wrong” opinion can cost you dearly, too. Just ask Professor John McAdams, who used to teach at Marquette University in Milwaukee.

Goldberg then recounts the discussion between a student and Philosophy instructor Cheryl Abbate, and says of the student:

[H]e also told Professor McAdams about it. The professor, who earned his PhD at Harvard, teaches political science and writes a blog. So he wrote about what happened, saying the instructor was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”

The blog went viral and the instructor got nasty, ugly emails.

That’s when the re-educators stepped in – they have titles at Marquette like dean and university president – and suspended Professor McAdams without pay and said he would not be allowed to teach at Marquette unless he admitted his conduct was “reckless” and he apologized.

If you haven’t guessed, McAdams said in effect, don’t hold your breath. He compared the demand to the “Inquisition, in which victims who ‘confessed’ they had been consorting with Satan and spreading heresy would be spared execution.”

Technically, the university is punishing Professor McAdams because he published the instructor’s name, resulting in those hate-filled emails sent to her. But if we follow this reasoning, a professor is not only responsible for what he writes but also for the reaction it produces.

What if university professors signed a petition against student athletes who supposedly raped an exotic dancer – which resulted in the athletes being maligned and put in the crosshairs of the angry mob? It happened at Duke with those lacrosse players who didn’t rape anybody. Should the professors — who already found them guilty absent a shred of evidence — be fired for causing innocent students distress?

Of course, the Gang of 88 at Duke were leftist professors, who were criticizing white males, so they get a pass on any negative consequences the white males endured.

And more recently, Oklahoma fraternity members were seen chanting a racist slogan in a video widely reported in the media. They got death threats. But then, they were affluent white males with very bad political opinions, so that’s OK too.

Unless something dramatic happens soon, Professor McAdams will lose his tenure and his job for expressing opinions the authoritarians – at a Catholic University no less – found objectionable.

There should be an outpouring of support for Professor McAdams – and it should come from professors at universities all across America. But such an uprising is not likely. Too many of these academic liberals have long forgotten what it means to be liberal. They claim to honor diversity but for them that doesn’t include diversity of opinion – the kind of opinion, as Professor McAdams has said, they would rather “shut up” than even listen to.

Our older — and even middle-aged — readers will remember having mostly liberal professors, although they probably had a few conservative ones too. And while some of the liberal professors were pretty intolerant, a lot of others weren’t, and even welcomed the expression of diverse opinions. And even the intolerant ones claimed to believe in free speech.

But in the last few decades, academics have produced elaborate rationales for shutting up speech. They will now explicitly insist that certain opinions are out of bounds, and need to be suppressed.

Petition in Support of Warrior Blogger

It’s at Prager University (not actually a university, but “a place to learn”): A petition supporting our right to academic freedom at Marquette.

We obviously welcome the support, but have only two minor caveats. At the moment, the petition says that Cheryl Abbate (the Philosophy instructor who told an undergraduate that opposition to gay marriage was not allowed in her class) has “moved on to a tenured position at another university.” Actually, she’s a graduate student who had completed all her coursework at Marquette, and has left Marquette for a much higher ranked Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado.

Also, two buttons on the page say “donate.” Somebody might think that allows the viewer to donate to some defense fund that we have — although that’s not the most obvious interpretation. It’s actually an opportunity to donate to Prager University. Which you are welcome to do.

We don’t have any “defense fund,” since we are being being represented pro bono by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Donating to them is an excellent idea, and supports not only our cause, but many other good causes in Wisconsin.

Here is where you would go to do that.

Rick Esenberg on Marquette Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger

On the Vicki McKenna show on Tuesday, April 5: the head of the legal team that is representing us against Marquette’s attempt to fire us.

Wall Street Journal on Marquette Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger

In the important national outlet, the Wall Street Journal:

Punished for Blogging at Marquette

A tenured professor faces dismissal after a blog went viral.

Blogging can be dangerous to your livelihood—or at least it can at Marquette University, where a professor may lose his job for expressing the wrong political views.

In November 2014 an undergraduate approached philosophy instructor and PhD candidate Cheryl Abbate, after a class on John Rawls’ theory of equal liberty. The student said he objected to her suggestions during the class that same-sex marriage isn’t open for debate and that “everyone agrees on this.”

Unknown to Ms. Abbate, the student recorded the exchange on his cell phone. During the conversation, she told him “there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and if someone in the class was homosexual, “don’t you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

When the student replied that he has a right to argue his opinion, Ms. Abbate responded that “you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.” The student reported the exchange to Marquette professor John McAdams, who teaches political science. Mr. McAdams also writes a blog called the Marquette Warrior, which often criticizes the Milwaukee school for failing to act in accordance with its Catholic mission.

Mr. McAdams wrote on his blog that Ms. Abbate was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” His blog went viral, and Ms. Abbate received vicious emails. She has since left Marquette.

But now Marquette is going after Mr. McAdams. In December 2014, the school sent him a letter suspending his teaching duties and banning him from campus while it reviewed his “conduct” related to the blog post. “You are to remain off campus during this time, and should you need to come to campus, you are to contact me in writing beforehand to explain the purpose of your visit, to obtain my consent and to make appropriate arrangements for that visit,” Dean Richard Holz wrote.

Marquette President Michael Lovell told the tenured professor that he would be suspended without pay and would not be reinstated unless he admitted his conduct was “reckless” and apologized for the unpleasant emails Ms. Abbate received.

All of this seems contrary to Marquette’s Faculty Handbook section 306.03, which says professors may be terminated by the university’s discretion only for “serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct.” The handbook says that “in no case” may just cause for dismissal be interpreted “to impair the full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.”

Mr. McAdams told Mr. Lovell this week that he won’t participate in the “compelled speech” demanded by the university by April 14 in exchange for reinstatement. This is more a test of Marquette and its ostensible free-speech principles than it is Mr. McAdams.

Marquette continues to take a beating in the press for its actions. Just how long are they willing to look like politically correct authoritarians? Given their behavior so far, they seem committed to firing this blogger no matter what the cost. Lovell’s almost hysterical tantrum, posted last week, reinforces this idea. Several people have noted that no competent lawyer, nor any competent public relations professional, would have approved it had they vetted it.

But given that courts will enforce the contractual right of academic freedom Marquette faculty have, this looks like it will be the institution’s Vietnam: a costly and humiliating defeat.

Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger / Response to Michael Lovell

It’s been going on for 16 months: the case where a blog post of ours revealed how a Marquette Philosophy instructor bullied a student telling him that expressing his opposition to gay marriage would be “homophobic” and would “offend” any gay classmates. Thus, he would not be allowed to speak.  Today we responded to the demands of Marquette President Michael Lovell, that we provide the following:

• Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee.
• Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values.
• Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.

Of course, all these demands were absurd.

Equally unreasonable was Lovell’s decision to suspend us until the end of the calendar year without pay.

Our response is described in a press release from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which is providing our legal representation.



For more information, contact:
Rick Esenberg, President & General Counsel
rick@will-law.org | 414-727-7416

 PROFESSOR McADAMS RESPONDS TO MARQUETTE’S DEMANDS

President Lovell’s public statements don’t line up with his actions

April 4, 2016 – Milwaukee, WI – Today, Professor John McAdams sent a response to Marquette President Michael Lovell’s demand that McAdams admit that his actions were reckless and incompatible with Marquette’s mission and values – or be fired. McAdams is refusing to compromise his principles by admitting something he believes to be wrong.

This all began when McAdams wrote a blog post critical of a graduate instructor at Marquette who told an undergraduate student that expressing opposition to gay marriage was homophobic and would not be tolerated in her class. After the instructor started receiving hate mail, Marquette summarily suspended McAdams and banned him from campus without following the required procedure.

The university then initiated formal proceedings to discipline McAdams. President Lovell has now stated that he is suspending McAdams without pay and will fire McAdams unless he signs a letter by April 4 acknowledging that his blog post was “reckless” and expressing “deep regret for the harm suffered” by Abbate. Despite his claims that he is merely imposing the faculty committee’s recommendation, the committee recommended only the suspension. President Lovell’s subsequent public statement claims that McAdams “inflicted” a “personal attack” on the graduate instructor, which is simply not true. McAdams’ blog post was critical, but neither rude nor incendiary. Lovell is trying to make McAdams vicariously responsible for the actions of others over whom he has no control. Despite his claims otherwise, that is the only ground Lovell is relying on to punish McAdams.

McAdams’ letter today rejects President Lovell’s demands. It states that McAdams believes his actions have always been consistent with Marquette’s values – in fact, he was protecting them by standing up for the undergraduate’s right to free academic discourse. It expresses regret that Abbate received such hateful emails, but denies that he was reckless or somehow responsible for others’ actions - academic freedom means nothing if a professor can be punished for the actions of third parties. It also highlights that the Faculty Hearing Committee concluded that Marquette violated the Faculty Statutes when it summarily suspended him and banned him from campus. Finally, the letter points out that Lovell’s demand that McAdams pen a mea culpa or be fired is itself a violation of the Faculty Statutes.

The full text of McAdams’ letter is available here.
###

Warrior Blogger on Fox News

Here is the version on the Fox News Website.

Warrior Blogger on Breitbart Radio

A particularly good interview, with some cogent questions about academia, done by Breitbart Radio.

Professor John McAdams of Marquette University appeared on Breitbart News Daily Friday morning to discuss his defense of traditional marriage, and how politically-correct enforcers are threatening his position at the university.

Sirius XM host Stephen K. Bannon pointed out that Marquette is a Jesuit university, and wondered how a position in defense of traditional marriage could make trouble for a professor at such an institution.

“I didn’t actually even defend traditional marriage,” McAdams said. “Simply the right of a student to defend traditional marriage without being bullied and demeaned. That was the whole point about my blog post.” In that post, McAdams described the case of a student who was told to drop a class by an angry leftist professor, who exclaimed that defending marriage between men and women was intolerably “homophobic, racist, and sexist.”

“As for so-called Catholic universities, first you have to understand that Jesuits are thin on the ground these days,” McAdams continued. “The president of Marquette’s not a Jesuit, the provost isn’t, the dean of arts and sciences isn’t… there are so few Jesuits that so-called Jesuit institutions pretty much aren’t run by Jesuits.”

He added that the Jesuit order itself was no longer a “bastion of Catholic orthodoxy.” This left universities like Marquette to suffer at the whims of “whatever fads prevail in academia generally.”

“For example, if it’s pandering to the gay lobby, they’ll pander to the gay lobby, and they’ve done so a lot,” said McAdams. “If it’s pandering to racial minorities – blacks, American Indians, Hispanics – they’ll do that, too. And, like all universities, there’s kind of a confluence of ideology and bureaucratic interest – that is to say, the administrators who run the university have an interest in hiring bureaucrats that work in their offices, so they’re always very happy to hire another assistant provost for things Hispanic, or associate provost to set up a bias reporting system, which Marquette has now.”

The once-great institution of Marquette has been hit especially hard by political correctness, but McAdams warned there was a general trend of “nonsense in academia” sweeping through institutions of higher learning across the country, citing the example of Emory University students claiming they “felt so hurt and were so unsafe” because someone “put pro-Donald Trump messages on the sidewalk.”

As for his own case, McAdams reported that Marquette University said they would suspend him without pay for the remainder of the calendar year. He would be allowed to return in January, “if I abase myself and apologize” for his blog post.

He also said he would be required to “promise to adhere to Marquette’s guiding values and mission statement… which of course, in my view, I’ve done.”

Unfortunately, McAdams noted the bureaucrats at Marquette seem to interpret their mission statement not as a high-minded commitment to academic inquiry and free expression, but simply as, “you don’t make trouble for the institution.”

Professor McAdams declared he would not make the apology demanded by P.C. enforcers. “I’m not going to sign any ‘loyalty oath’ to Marquette’s mission – since I’m, in fact, probably a stronger proponent of Marquette’s claimed mission than the people running the university,” he chuckled. “But I’m against loyalty oaths. Interestingly, a lot of older liberals remember loyalty oaths in the 1950s, where professors were required to swear they were loyal to America and had no sympathy for Communism… liberals hated that. And now what you have is a liberal administration at Marquette demanding a loyalty oath from me.”

He declared his determination to fight the university, cheerfully noting that his lawyers are working pro bono, so “Marquette can’t run me away by having me build up huge legal bills.”

“I think it’s pretty clear, the odds are there’s going to be a huge lawsuit,” he predicted.

George Orwell in Academia

From National Review:

There’s nothing like a good show trial to build confidence in the academy’s commitment to academic freedom. Marquette University is demanding that embattled professor John McAdams apologize for criticizing a colleague as a condition for keeping his job. And what outrage did McAdams commit? He tried to protect the academic freedom and free speech of conservative students:

On November 2014, McAdams, a tenured associate professor of political science, posted an entry on his Marquette Warrior blog describing a recorded conversation between an undergraduate student and the instructor for his “Theory of Ethics” philosophy course. The instructor, Cheryl Abbate, was recorded telling the student that the expression of certain opinions in class was inappropriate because those opinions may be considered offensive to other listeners. Abbate specifically cited the student’s stated opposition to same-sex marriage as a problem.

Abbate’s actions were criticized by readers of McAdams’ blog entry, and her alleged actions received widespread attention from national media. In response, Richard C. Holz, dean of Marquette’s Klingler College of Arts and Sciences, suspended McAdams.

You read that correctly. Rather than discipline the instructor who silenced a conservative student, the university suspended the whistleblower. Now it’s reportedly extending the suspension through the fall 2016 semester and demanding that he apologize as a condition of returning to work. My former colleagues at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) are right to label the forced apology “an age-old inquisitorial tactic used to violate freedom of conscience through compelled speech.”

McAdams — to his immense credit — is not backing down. Here’s his response:

The addition of a demand that we abase ourself and issue an apology and sign a loyalty oath to vaguely defined “guiding values” and to the University’s “mission” is obviously a ploy by Marquette to give the administration an excuse to fire us. They have calculated, correctly, that we will do no such thing.

I would say that it’s astonishing that a Catholic university punish a professor for defending the right of students to advocate the church’s teaching on marriage, but politically correct nonsense is par for the course even (especially) at many religious colleges. McAdams should be applauded — and supported — for his lonely, courageous stand.

It’s not actually so lonely, since quite a lot of people have rallied to our defense. Significantly, only very few people in academia have publicly defended us. The intimidation factor is huge. Conservatives in academia are used to keeping their heads down.

Ordinary Americans are a different matter. We are routinely stopped in the street to be commended and encouraged by complete strangers. The American citizens outside academia are a pretty tolerant bunch.

Warrior Blogger on Charles Syles Insight 2016 / March 23, 2016