Kirsten Powers on Marquette’s Attack on Warrior Blogger

Kirsten Powers is a liberal, but an old-style liberal who believes in freedom of expression. Those folks are becoming fewer and fewer. As one would expect in a volume that chronicles the actions of the intolerant left, her new book The Silencing deals with Marquette University.

The relentless stereotyping and demonizing of people who oppose same-sex marriage has paid enormous dividends for the illiberal left. Their views have seeped into the culture to the point that many people think that denying same-sex marriage opponents the right to speak about their views is acceptable. In 2014, an instructor in a philosophy class at Marquette University, a Catholic school, let it be known that opposition to same-sex marriage was unworthy of discussion. In a conversation recorded by a student following the class, instructor Cheryl Abbate explained “there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful” and compared questioning same-sex marriage to sexism and racism. Abbate went on to say that no one should express views that might be “offensive” to any gay student. Abbate told the student, who opposed same-sex marriage, “You don’t have a right in this class ...to make homophobic comments” and said the student could drop the class. The student complained, but the university took no action against the instructor.

Marquette political science associate professor John McAdams wrote a blog post criticizing Abbate for refusing to allow criticism of same-sex marriage in class discussions and quoted the conversation Abbate had with the student. He then found himself the object of illiberal scrutiny. Inside Higher Ed’s Colleen Flaherty wrote that University of South Carolina associate professor Justin Weinberg argued that McAdams had made Abbate the “target of a political attack,” likely stemming from “sexism.” Louisiana State University French studies professor John Protevi posted an open letter of support of Abbate on his blog blasting McAdams’s “one-sided public attack.” Abbate characterized McAdams’s post as “cyberbullying and harassment” and noted, “It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty.”

Just to be clear here: the illiberal left considers the victim in this story to be the professor who preemptively silenced a student and compared his views to racism and sexism. Disagreement expressed by McAdams, in an academic environment where rigorous debate should be encouraged, was cast as a bullying attack. Rather than his motivation being reasonably interpreted as wanting to expose illiberal silencing on a campus, McAdams was accused of being motivated by sexism. This is all standard fare for the illiberal left. Why make a substantive argument when it’s just as easy to smear dissenters as sexist bullies?

While the university brushed off the student’s complaints of being silenced, the administration became vigorously engaged when the illiberal left complained about McAdams’s post. Incredibly, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences sent McAdams a letter informing him he was “relieved of all teaching duties and all other faculty activities, including, but not limited to, advising, committee work, faculty meetings and any activity that would involve your interaction with Marquette students, faculty and staff.” He was ordered to stay off campus while he was being investigated for an unnamed transgression. Enclosed was a copy of Marquette’s harassment policy, which appears to be modeled on Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), screenshots of a faculty training session on the policy include “a slide about hypothetical peers Becky and Maria, who ‘have been talking about their opposition to same-sex marriage.’ Hans overhears the conversations, is offended, and reports the two for harassment. Hans’s action is condoned.”

It’s hard to imagine a more intellectually chilling policy than one that turns students and faculty into informants and punishes them for discussing issues in a manner not sanctioned by university authorities.

When a reporter inquired about the investigation against McAdams, a Marquette spokesperson straight out of Orwell’s 1984 asserted that McAdams had violated the university’s “Guiding Values to which all faculty and staff are required to adhere, and in which the dignity and worth of each member of our community is respected , especially students.” Clearly Marquette’s “Guiding Values” don’t apply to students who oppose same-sex marriage. Marquette was also violating its expressed commitment to free speech in its official handbook, which states, “It is clearly inevitable, and indeed essential, that the spirit of inquiry and challenge that the university seeks to encourage will produce many conflicts of ideas, opinions and proposals for action.”

Due process was also out the window. McAdams was not informed of his offense, nor was he given an opportunity to defend himself. This treatment blatantly violates another one of Marquette’s show documents, the faculty handbook, which states that the university protects professors’ “full and free enjoyment of legitimate personal or academic freedoms of thought, doctrine, discourse, association, advocacy, or action.” Apparently, Marquette’s professed commitments to their students and professors are trumped by their enigmatic and creepy “Guiding Values.” One might also note the irony of an orthodox Catholic position on marriage being ruled as outside the bounds of legitimate discussion at a Catholic university at the hands of the illiberal left who dominate or run so many college and university campuses.

Power’s book can be purchased here.

Marquette Warrior: Support From an “In the Closet” Philosopher

In the wake of some nasty attacks from politically correct academics following our account of a Philosophy instructor who would not allow discussion of gay marriage because any voicing of opposition to the policy might offend gay students who might be in the class, we have also gotten messages of support.

The following is from an e-mail with the subject line “Support from the Closet.” No, the person is not a closeted gay (so far as we know) but rather someone with politically incorrect political attitudes.

John (if I may), I am a philosopher and want to express my support for your clear-headed critique and analysis of the recent incident at Marquette. This event is consistent with the recent, yet rapidly growing, infection of political correctness that is consuming academic philosophy, a place that was a hold out against this madness. That political correct tyranny could take root in philosophy, the tradition that traces back to Socrates, is a grotesque irony of the highest magnitude. I hope you understand that there are philosophers out there who agree with you and applaud you but that many of us cannot speak publicly for legitimate fear of retaliation. Those of us, like myself, who don’t have tenure, are well aware of the vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field. So, I can only express my support for you on this matter in private.

It’s good to know that there are still some reasonable people out there.

The most chilling comments here are those about “legitimate fear of retaliation” and “vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field.”

The politically correct crowd does not consist of happy warriors, eager to engage in debate and wanting to prove the superiority of their views in the free market of ideas. Before the era of political correctness (which grew out of 60s leftism, although the current practitioners are the intellectual children and grandchildren of that generation) a lot of liberals welcomed debate. While they could be as biased as anybody else, when pressed they came down on the side of tolerance.

They are a dwindling breed.

Abuse From the Politically Correct Crowd Over Instructor Who Said Gay Students Would Be Offended at Discussion of Gay Marriage

Some leftist and politically correct blogs have taken up the cause of Cheryl Abbate, the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told one of her students that gay marriage could not be discussed in class since any opposition to gay marriage might offend gay students.

Some of the abuse has been in personal e-mails to us.  For example:

Ben Mulitski [benthono@gmail.com]

You are what’s wrong with this world-- spreading hatred for the sake of spreading hatred. Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.

http://dailynous.com/2014/11/18/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-political-smear-campaign/

This is the secret id of politically correct people revealing itself: “Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.” Yes, politically correct people think they have a right to shut up speech that they think is “blatantly wrong.”

Then we have an another e-mail, sent to us:

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

As usual, just a privileged old White MALE tryin’ to talk about who should feel offended and who shouldn’t. And, as usual, another privileged old white male tryin’ to do all he can to ensure that a female philosopher feels marginalized and denigrated.

You are a small human being.

Sincerely,

Brandon

Yes, another view into the id of the politically correct. Anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. And of course ageism.

Buck then upped the ante by e-mailing the entire political science faculty.

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

Greetings all,

As an MU alum, I’m thoroughly disappointed because, at this point, your silence is deafening. And your silence renders you equally culpable. This isn’t just another case of McAdams being McAdams. This isn’t a case of intellectual liberty to express unpopular ideas.

Whatever went down in that ethics course, the fact remains that the TA is a Marquette student. As a student, she’s entrusted to the care of MU faculty (that’s you!). McAdams’s actions violated the fiduciary responsibility he has toward ALL students at Marquette. The same fiduciary responsibility you all share. By publicly attacking a student in this way, he has potentially caused her emotional and psychological trauma. He has violated a student’s privacy, and has deliberately and intentionally caused her harm with neither care nor appropriate foresight. For these reasons, McAdams is not fit to serve as a faculty member at ANY university.

To be clear, the university is not only a marketplace of ideas. It’s a place where young people can become grow to become good people.

Maybe as a novice educator with no training provided by the university, the TA felt she wasn’t yet adequately prepared to handle a conversation about gay marriage in a responsible way. Perhaps she intended to consult the advice of her advisor; or maybe she wanted to invite conversation on the topic during another class session in a more structured way. In either case, her unwillingness to engage the conversation at that particular time during that particular class could equally signal prudence and a sense of responsibility for all her students (two virtues McAdams is obviously lacking).

In any event the incident provided a valuable learning opportunity for all students involved. And instead of helping an aspiring academic grow and become a better person and a better pedagogue, McAdams chose to publicly humiliate, disparage and attack her. McAdams is flatly pathetic and there’s no place for that in your esteemed department, at Marquette--or any university.

Along with his immediate termination, he should also be subject to civil liability. And the fact remains that, as long as you all stand silently by, you’re equally morally culpable.

Sincerely,

Brandon
_________________________________________________
Brandon Buck
Doctoral Fellow, Philosophy and Education
GA/TA, Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis
Teachers College, Columbia University
(m) [redacted]

Other Arguments

Some responses were less deranged, but still misguided.

Some attackers accused us of taking Abbate’s comments out of context. We have no time to prepare an entire transcript of the exchange between Abbate and the student, but we did supply the entire audio to a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, and she confirmed both the thrust and the details of what we reported.

The reporter, Colleen Flaherty, got a response from Abbate, and Abbate admitted that she said “it seemed right to me” that a ban on gay marriage would violate Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, which was the text being discussed. This is not precisely what the student reported to us, but it’s easy to see how the student would have perceived the instructor blowing off an issue that he wanted to discuss.

Flaherty confirmed that we e-mailed Abbate, and asked for her version of what happened. Abbate did not respond.

A supporter of Abbate’s, one Justin Weinberg, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, opined that “the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics).”

The problem is that’s not what Abbate said to the student. She explicitly said she did not want to discuss the issue because if arguments against gay marriage were voiced, they might offend any gay students in the class.

We teach a course in Public Policy. We don’t discuss gay marriage for the simple reason that we focus on issues that can be decided on the costs and benefits and their distribution. Gay marriage doesn’t fit that context very well.  But an instructional choice is not the same thing as wanting to protect students from arguments they might dislike.

Only Certain Groups Get Protection

Nobody would say that a biology professor should refrain from discussing evolution because some conservative Christians might object, or that atheist arguments can’t be aired because Christians and other theists might be offended.

Only certain victim groups get protection from hearing things they are presumed to get upset about.  And it doesn’t matter whether they really get upset.  To presume that gays would get upset over hearing arguments against gay marriage, or blacks would get upset hearing arguments against affirmative action is to demean both groups.  It’s true that among both groups there are hustlers who are perpetually offended.  But they should not be allowed to censor the discussion.

In reality, it’s arguments that liberal and leftist professors don’t like that are deemed “offensive.”

Another Argument of Campus Authoritarians

Weinberg made another argument, far more insidious, supporting Abbate’s refusal to discuss gay marriage. Quoting:

It also happened to be a kind of comment that Abbate noted might be offensive, and might constitute harassment according to Marquette University’s policies. So it seems she was being a good teacher as well as playing it safe regarding university policy. That was prudent, given her status as a graduate student instructor. The main take-away, though, is that it would have been perfectly permissible for Abbate to request the student not make the comment even if it weren’t offensive.

This, of course, contradicts Weinberg’s first argument, that not discussing gay marriage was merely an instructional choice. Here, he endorses the notion that allowing any opposition to gay marriage to be voiced would be “harassment” and might violate a harassment policy.

This is the first cousin to the notion that politically incorrect opinions are “offensive” and thus must be silenced.

Unfortunately, Marquette itself seemed to endorse that notion in a “training” module on “harassment” that all faculty and employees were required to take a few months ago.

But that notion would never stand up in court, and it’s unlikely Marquette would ever try to enforce that notion.  But they might not mind if it chills politically incorrect speech, since such speech creates problems for administrators.

Conclusion

So what we have is the academic version of the culture wars, with the increasingly authoritarian academic left wanting to shut up first students, and then professors who fail to toe the line.