Marquette Law Professors Signed Letter Supporting Trump Impeachment

A total of three Marquette Law School Professors are among the (as of this writing) 854 such professors who have signed a letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump.

The are:

• Ellis Atiba
• Murray Kali
• Michael Waxman, Emeritus

They are, of course, absolutely within their rights to do so.

But others have an equal right to decide they have let their partisan biases override their sober legal judgment.

Interestingly missing are at least a couple of the usual suspects among left-leaning Marquette law professors: Paul Secunda and Ed Fallone.

In Fallone’s case, it may be because he’s running for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, and the latest Marquette Poll shows that only 40 percent of Wisconsinites favor impeachment and removal, while 52 percent oppose it.

Or perhaps either or both believe that the case against Trump is pretty thin, or alternatively that it’s a rather useless symbolic gesture given that the Senate will not convict.

Marquette’s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It?

As we previously discussed, Marquette has suspended and apparently seeks to fire Law School Professor Paul Secunda for an “an inappropriate relationship” with a student.

The suspension and claim of “an inappropriate relationship” were leaked to the Journal-Sentinel. We don’t know by whom, nor what the motive was.

And the fact that the leaker failed to supply more details — leaving the impression that Secunda must have done something terrible — is suspicious. Would more details make his transgression (if it was a transgression) seem less serious?

Was the intention to smear Secunda?

Marquette Mum

Marquette, when asked by the Journal-Sentinel, simply said:

“Paul Secunda has been removed from his duties, including teaching, at Marquette University as the result of information developed from an investigation that began last May. Marquette will not comment further on the issue at this time.”

So an investigation that began in May resulted in him getting pulled out of class two weeks before the end of the semester, throwing into turmoil the final exam and reporting of grades.

That clearly suggests some precipitous move by Marquette. Was the (equally) precipitous departure by Provost Dan Myers in October related? According to the Journal-Sentinel, Myers was “negotiating a resolution with Secunda and then resigned suddenly in October, and Secunda was then suspended from teaching a short time later.” It would be odd if Kimo Ah Yun, new Acting Provost, moved so abruptly upon taking office. In fact, it would be rather disturbing.

What Did He Do?

The leaker (but not Marquette) accused Secunda of an “an inappropriate relationship.” That would imply something consensual, since “sexual assault” is sexual assault, and “quid pro quo harassment” (offering some favorable treatment for sex, or threatening unfavorable treatment if sex is denied) is much worse than “an inappropriate relationship.”

But who knows if the leaker was using precise language?

Has Secunda Made Enemies?

When Marquette tried to fire us, they were egged on by a collection of leftist faculty, who had a long-standing grudge about our blogging, which had revealed numerous abuses by politically correct types on campus.

But Secunda is a leftist. So shouldn’t that give him some protection?

From some things, yes, but not from everything.

First, the sort of extreme feminism that thrives on college campuses encourages women to feel abused and ill-treated. Sometimes, perhaps, as the result merely of an ill-considered and inadvisable relationship that turned out badly.

Does Secunda have a spurned (or otherwise aggrieved) woman in his past? The other alternative is that the “relationship” was so indiscreet as to provoke complaints to administrators.

Has she (if there is a “she”) threatened to sue Marquette? Secunda’s statement — “I assume Marquette University has chosen to act as it has toward me to protect the University” — might imply that.

And indeed, Cheryl Abbate, the instructor whom we blogged about in 2014, did threaten Marquette with a lawsuit. Marquette’s subsequent attempt to fire us embroiled it in a nasty, protracted and vastly expensive lawsuit which ended in a humiliating defeat before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Enemies Among Administrators

One thing that is clearly the case is that Secunda has alienated some campus administrators, and especially Law School Dean Joseph D. Kearney. Secunda has been outspoken in believing that Marquette’s law school, in a fancy, expensive new building, should have been improving its standing in national rankings — rankings that have a huge effect on (for example) the quality of applicants and the job prospects of graduates.

A reliable source in the Law School reports witnessing “on multiple occasions” antagonistic interactions between Secunda and Kearney.

In a Law School Faculty meeting, a request was made of Kearney to explain exactly what the charges were, and a motion was made to go into executive session to hear the details. The motion failed.

Kearney made it clear he didn’t want to share any details.

It doesn’t matter too much whether you are on the left or the right when you make things uncomfortable for campus bureaucrats.

We Need More Information

Much of what we have said is speculation, but it is informed speculation, based on our own experience and observations. In fact, some in the Law School are calling this “McAdams II.”

Secunda is lawyered up — yes, lawyers themselves feel the need to lawyer up. And lawyers typically tell their clients to stay silent, lest they say something to complicate their case.

But we badly need more sunlight on this case. It has been covered in media highly visible in the legal community, including Above the Law, Law.com, Legal Insurrection, and Inside Higher Ed.

It has doubtless harmed his reputation.

We can easily believe Secunda may have done something we would consider immoral, and maybe something most would agree to be foolish or ill-considered.

But that’s not the same as professional misconduct. And given that Marquette has no policy concerning sex between faculty and students, any infraction would have to be obviously and blatantly at odds with some established academic norms to justify disciplining him.

Marquette’s credibility on issues like this is poor. We will have to see some hard — and damning — information before we conclude that his suspension (or any eventual attempt to fire him) is justified.

Marquette Law School Professor Paul Secunda Suspended Over “Inappropriate Relationship”

From the Journal-Sentinel:

A Marquette University Law School professor who might otherwise weigh in as an expert on such issues has been suspended over allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a student.

Paul Secunda, a well-known blogger and authority on labor and employment law, was dismissed from his teaching duties two weeks from the end of this past semester.

This is rather remarkable, since this completely messes up the final exam and the assignment of grades. When Marquette suspended us in December 2014, they waited until the afternoon after we had posted all the final grades before noon that day.

According to the article, “Marquette Provost Dan Myers reportedly was negotiating a resolution with Secunda and then resigned suddenly in October. . . .” So why this timing?

Marquette officials declined to discuss specifics of the law school’s concerns. The university only issued this statement:

“Paul Secunda has been removed from his duties, including teaching, at Marquette University as the result of information developed from an investigation that began last May. Marquette will not comment further on the issue at this time.”

Secunda did not reply to requests for an interview, but did release a statement through his attorney, Jennifer Walther:

“I assume Marquette University has chosen to act as it has toward me to protect the University. This does not diminish the great respect I have for this institution and my fellow professors.

“Nonetheless, I cannot stand by idly in the face of what I believe to be an injustice. I have confidence in the process Marquette and the faculty have established to protect tenured professors in these circumstances, and believe I will clear my name at the end.”

Why the phrase “protect the university?” Is the implication here that some woman has threatened a lawsuit, and Marquette is firing Secunda in order to fend it off?

We are, at the moment, bereft of facts on the case, and can simply quote from the Journal-Sentinel article “Secunda’s [case] remains mostly the subject of rumors. It has not been disclosed if the student was in his class or whether she filed the original complaint.”

What Would Be the Basis For Firing?

We know of no Marquette rule or statute that deals with sexual relationships between faculty and students. There are extensive Marquette statements on sexual harassment, but if the charge against Secunda was harassment, the statement would say “harassment” and not “inappropriate relationship.”

One possibility is that Marquette wants to use the following language from the Faculty Statutes:

Discretionary cause shall include those circumstances, exclusive of absolute cause, which arise from a faculty member’s conduct and which clearly and substantially fail to meet the standard of personal and professional excellence which generally characterizes University faculties, but only if through this conduct a faculty member’s value will probably be substantially impaired. Examples of conduct that substantially impair the value or utility of a faculty member are: serious instances of illegal, immoral, dishonorable, irresponsible, or incompetent conduct.

Marquette tried to use this language to fire us, and was soundly slapped down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court noted this section of the Statutes:

In no case, however, shall discretionary cause 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.

Secunda’s case is different, in that it doesn’t involve free speech as ours did. It might involve some abuse of his position.

But . . .

Marquette has here adopted language from the American Association of University Professors, and a long trail of precedents and statements says it must be interpreted narrowly.

We think Marquette, as a (supposedly) Catholic university has a right to say that all sex outside of marriage is immoral and dishonorable.

But Marquette can’t, all of a sudden, decide it is going to take this position, when it has never said so explicitly. In fact, Marquette has acted very differently. It has explicitly condoned homosexual sex, and provided benefits for gay “domestic partners.”

We know of at least one case in Political Science of a professor (now long gone from Marquette) cohabiting with a graduate student.  Nobody made an issue of it.  There have to be many similar cases in other departments.

Given that the language of the Faculty Statutes must be interpreted narrowly, Secunda can only be fired if his value has been “substantially impaired.” In today’s lax moral climate, we doubt that any mere consensual sexual relationship meets that standard.

But maybe there was more to it than that.

Conclusion

We are glad Secunda is going to contest this (presumably with the Faculty Hearing Committee), if for no other reason than that the facts will come out, and all can judge whether Marquette has acted properly.

We simply do not trust Marquette to act honestly and forthrightly, and only some sunshine falling on the specifics of the case will allow us to judge.

Yet More on the $15 Minimum Wage

In the Tribune, a good article on the demands of fast food workers to get a minimum of $15.00 an hour for doing low-skilled or unskilled work.

Our definition of a good article: one that quotes us a lot.

It does quote leftist Law School professor Paul Secunda (we suggested to the writer that she contact Secunda to get an alternative view, and being a good journalist, she did).

According to the article:

Paul Secunda, a Marquette law professor, points to other countries to argue in favor of raising the minimum wage.

“McDonald’s and other restaurants’ fast food workers make closer to $15 per hour by law in other countries, and McDonald’s and these other companies still choose to open restaurants there,” Secunda said in an email. “I am all for the workers striking for fairer wages.”

Secunda said unless protesters act collectively, they won’t receive national attention.

Of course, everybody in a free country has a right to seek attention. But they don’t have a right to be viewed as anything more than representatives of a moocher culture that thinks you get ahead, not by working hard or getting training or education, but by “acting collectively” and demanding free stuff at other people’s expense.

Secunda’s claim about other countries that have high minimum wages fails to mention that he is talking about socialist countries of Europe that have chronically higher unemployment than the U.S. does.

How high minimum wages drive unemployment is vividly illustrated by a 2011 article from MSN Money:

McDonald’s (MCD) is trying to make fast food even faster.

The Financial Times reports that the world’s largest fast-food chain plans to replace many of the cashiers at its 7,000 European restaurants with touch-screen terminals that allow customers to order and pay electronically.

The system is similar to what many consumers experience in supermarkets, retailers and gasoline stations that have opted for self-checkout to save on labor costs. McDonald’s says the move is about making its European restaurants more convenient and efficient. It’s also clearly about keeping down costs. If it succeeds, you can bet the trend will come soon to the U.S.

The decision is being driven by margin concerns. McDonald’s is still growing its sales, reporting a 5.7% increase during its first quarter in Europe compared with a year ago. But margins are being eaten up by higher commodity costs -- beef and dairy in particular. (Mickey D’s recently debuted new chicken menu items to fight beef inflation.)

Outside the restaurant, consumers everywhere are struggling to pay bills under the weight of rising gasoline and food prices, and a Big Mac or McCafe coffee is quickly becoming an expense many folks cannot afford as often as they might once have. That may be even more the case now that McDonald’s has said it will raise menu prices to cover rising food costs.

But while the ordering experience may not change, the labor market could feel an impact. During the Great Recession, many consumers turned to McDonald’s -- one of the few employers still hiring -- for employment. McDonald’s recently held a national hiring day to fill 50,000 jobs. There may be some risk in rolling out a cashier-free system after touting the restaurant’s footprint as an employer. And if there are not enough accessible employees around to complain about when folks use the self-checkout for the first time, that could really give customers the impression that McDonald’s is just looking to cut corners to squeeze out a few more euros.

McDonald’s didn’t mention any immediate plans to make touch-screen ordering and payment more widespread in the United States. But if it’s successful in Europe, it won’t be long before U.S. consumers find themselves reading or talking to a screen.

This has yet to come to the U.S., but any large increase in the minimum wage would guarantee that it does.

Which brings us to the dirty little secret of the leftists who want a much higher minimum wage. They want markets distorted. They want wages, salaries and profits to be distributed on the basis of politics, because they are the kind of people who have little ability to perform in a market, but substantial political power.

They are people like (just for example) law school professors.

When a higher minimum wage creates unemployment, that becomes a reason to demonize businesses that lay off workers, all for “their obscene profits.”

Unemployment increases the demand for social welfare benefits, and makes more people dependent on government. And the liberals and leftists know perfectly well that dependence on government helps them politically.

So when the liberals and leftists claim to be acting with “compassion” and “concern for the workers” they honestly have convinced themselves of that. But underneath is the raw fact that they are promoting their own political welfare at the expense of workers and consumers.