Discerning Marquette Values from the Academic Inquisition of Professor John Mc Adams

In the fall of 2014, a Marquette University Undergraduate student had an encounter with his lecturer after a  “Theory of Ethics” class as the Graduate Teaching Assistant instructor Cheryl Abbate applied a philosophy text to contemporary political controversies.  After class, the undergraduate questioned how John Rawl’s Theory of Justice was blithely applied to gay rights.

The Undergraduate student argued against same-sex marriage and gay adoption. After engaging in some academic exchanges with the undergraduate who endorsed traditional family values, Abbate played the trump card of political correct “Offensiveness”.  The philosophy graduate student interrogated the  undergraduate as to whether he knew if there were any gay students in the class.  Abbate declared that no homophobic or racist comments would be tolerated and encouraged him to drop the class.

During the colloquy, the undergraduate student recorded the exchange with his cell phone.  When questioned by Abbate if the conversation was being recorded, the student denied that it was. Abbate demanded to see the phone, and when it was surrendered, indeed the conversation was being recorded.

Marquette Asst. Prof. John McAdams

Although the Undergraduate student did succumb to the pressure to exit that ethics class, he did try to work through the system to register his displeasure. The Arts and Science Dean shuffled the complaint to the Philosophy Chair who subsequently ignored the issue. Afterwards, the shunted student turned to Marquette Political Science Assistant Professor John McAdams, who also publishes “Marquette Warrior”, a new media news and analysis site that is often critical of the Marquette University Administration.

McAdams coverage of the free speech and academic freedom scandal spread like wildfire, reaching the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and  Fox News.  This publicity generated hate mail towards Abbate and exposed Marquette University’s progressive embrace of political correctness. Subsequently, the Marquette University Dean of the Arts and Sciences Richard C. Holtz suspended the tenured McAdams (with pay) and barred the Professor who taught at the institution for 33 years from visiting the downtown Milwaukee campus.

This controversy came to a head a fortnight ago, when Marquette University moved to suspend McAdams for a semester without pay but the Arts and Science Faulty stipulated as a condition for readmittance that McAdams profess his “guilt” for the incident and pledge that he would adhere to Marquette’s Guiding Values, whatever those are. 

Banner for the inaugural of Marquette University President  Michael Lovell

Essentially, this move puts McAdams on the tenure track for termination.

Seen from the progressive establishment’s perspective, McAdams is an outlier academic as he is a conservative Poly-Sci professor.  Moreover, McAdams is a gadfly, a tenured voice of discord with the progressive descent of Marquette Hall into political correctness.

 In addition, McAdams’ publishes “Marquette Warrior” which in itself is a slap in the face to Marquette’s administration.  In the early 1990s, then Marquette President Fr. Robert Wilde, S.J., banished the beloved Marquette Warrior citing political correct principles.  Despite having a ballot for another mascot which included “the Jellyfish”, “The Yacks” and “The Jumpin’ Jesuits”, it seemed that the “Golden Eagle” was predestined to win.  A quarter century later, Marquette Alums still defiantly cheer “Let’s Go Warriors” at Men’s basketball games.

Academia is up in arms over McAdams for self serving but parochial professional reasons.  Pieces defending Abbate insist that she was being smeared, that she was exposed to hate speech through publicity, that did not have proper time to respond and that McAdams used questionable journalism in reporting the incident.  The thing is if one reads McAdams piece, he exposes liberal fascism with the tactics of other Marquette professors and names names.  So the best way to shut him up is to claim Harassment and demand that he do political re-education via the Guiding Values mau-mau.

Why is this political inquisition on a college campus important?

Firstly, it again exposes liberal academic intolerance in the classroom. The legally taped recording memorialized how free speech was limited on behalf of not offending anyone (except those who disagree with political correct ideology).  Concomitantly, the reinstatement demand by the Marquette faculty essentially abates free speech.

Secondly, the incident impeaches Marquette University’s credibility as a Catholic university.  To have Teaching Assistants prohibiting even discussing views which align with the Magisterium (as reaffirmed by Pope Francis’ recent encyclical "Amoris Laetitia”) as it is homophobic or racist speech.  The Marquette Guiding Values trumpet Jesuit and  Catholic virtues but those seem to be a veneer.

Thirdly, it calls into question the value of tenure.  McAdams has been associated with Marquette for 34 ½ years and has tenure.  In order for his faculty rights to be re-instated, the Marquette Administration insists that he bow down to his colleagues, publically announce his guilt and swear fealty to Guiding Values which are amorphous and are being capriciously followed (see Catholic Magisterium).

Fourthly, the Marquette Warrior blog shows the value of the New Media and Internet 2.0.  After getting the run around from the Administration, a citizen journalist (in the person of a tenured faculty member) spread the news and the abuse was exposed.  Some argue that McAdams did not follow journalistic practice.  But he had a primary source, legally taped proof and wrote an opinion analysis, which certainly fell within his Political Science bailiwick.  It shows how administrators, be they academic or corporate, can infringe on personal liberty and free speech via monitoring social media.

Fifthly, it shows liberal hypocrisy.  Marquette’s Administration is all in a twitter about their former Teaching Assistant being harassed (but not by McAdams) and receiving hate mail.  However, as the matter was being adjudicated, they have no concern that the whistle-blower was also receiving hateful blowback.

It seems as if Marquette’s Administration is trying to settle old grudges through this incident.  McAdams clearly is not beloved by the Arts and Science Faculty as he is a conservative and one who will call out his colleagues.  McAdams embarrassed the Marquette Administration by getting national attention.  By suspending McAdams and demanding terms which violate his tenure and contractually guaranteed Freedom of Speech, Marquette sets McAdams up to be terminated and fight in court.  Law-fare is a long and expensive process in which litigants can claim privilege and not discuss the case. The seventy year old McAdams might drop the costly case or it will become moot in the long process of adjudication.

At the heart of the matter, we must discern what are Marquette’s values in this academic inquisition. Liberal education in the classical sense, a study of the higher things which draws forth and hones inquisitiveness and debate that empowers students to deal with the complexities of life?  Or is it expensive inculcation of au currant politically correct values and an appreciation of liberal fascism?

Marquette proclaims itself a Catholic academic institution which is committed to Catholic social teaching and  gives “our support of Catholic beliefs and values”.  While it has long had progressive theologian Dan McGuire (who incidentally supports McAdams academic freedom) it has also produced Scott Hahn, a convert Catholic who has revolutionized Covenant theology.  Is barring even the defense of the Magisterium in the form of supporting traditional marriage in the classroom impermissible?  Really?

Marquette’s Guiding Values manifesto exhorts reaching beyond traditional academic boundaries and embracing new methods.  Do these values include using the new media to expose academic intimidation in the classroom, documenting political correctness and sharing the truth with the world?

The Guiding Values close with an admonition that echoes St. Ignatius of Loyola to “set the world on fire.”  I fear that the McAdams affair sets Marquette’s supposed “Guiding Values” on fire. But a blaze of truth can purify.

Tell that to Joan of Arc. The Maid of Orleans was burned at the stake in 1431 in Rouen by the English powers that be because she espoused God's truths.  When the ecclesiastic establishment could not trip Joan of Arc up during her testimony, they charged her with scandal about cross-dressing.  Joan's captures gave her a chance to recant but when she again followed God's will, she was burned at the stake for repeated heresy.  This was brilliantly portrayed in the mesmerizing Carl Theodore Dreyer film "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928). Pope Benedict XV canonized St. Joan of Arc in 1920.

The Joan of Arc chapel was transferred brick by brick from Orleans, France to Long Island in 1927.  The Joan of Arc Chapel was brought to Milwaukee in 1964 and is the centerpiece of the campus. What an ironic parallel for Marquette to honor the virtues of St. Joan of Arc but acts so inquisitorially towards a tenured academician following truth.

Bronze of (Pere) Jacques Marquette (2004) by Ronald Knepper in front of
St. Joan of Arc Chapel, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Post Scriptus:  Marquette University President Michael Lovell assessed the McAdams mess as making a "personal attack" on a student.  The salient point was what capacity was then Marquette Teaching Assistant Cheryl Abbate acting when she barred free speech in the classroom concerning Same-Sex Marriage.  Res ipsa loquitur. Abbate was acting as an instructor as she dictated acceptable rhetoric and viewpoints within her classroom.  Moreover Abbate pressured the undergraduate philosophy student to drop the class. 

UPDATE 01/18/2017  Professor McAdams received a letter from Marquette legal counsel that he will remain on indefinite suspension until he admits his guilt and formally apologizes.  Professor McAdams lawyer considers this letter the functional equivalent of a pink slip.  McAdams is on route to a jury trial in June and he is not inclined to take a large settlement to shut up and make the problem go away. 

UPDATE 01/24/2018 The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to bypass the Court of Appeals and immediately hear Professor John McAdams’ case against Marquette University.  McAdams sued Marquette after the university fired him for blogging about a graduate student instructor who mistreated her undergraduate pupil.  The court will likely hear oral argument in in the spring and and issue a ruling by July, 2018.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court took the case 

because there is no binding precedent on the question of how far academic freedom extends.  

Is Common Core a Co-Creation of Political Correctness and Crony Capitalism?

During a forum  held by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, Granite State professor Dr. David Pook offered that he helped craft the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts because of "white privilege".  

Ironically, the Derryfield School in Manchester, New Hampshire (which has a 91% Caucasian student body) where Pook serves as chair of the History Department, does not use those Common Core standards because they are inferior.

So why do some politicians continue to champion Common Core? Some have suggested crony capitalism. 

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) is a big backer of Common Core.  Kathleen Jasper, a former Florida educator and founder of ConversationED.com, suggest that there may be pecuniary interests in pushing Common Core.  Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education is heavily tied to Pearson, a leading education publisher and test making company.  So Pearsons publishes the k-12 books, they create the tests, they score the tests and coincidentally keep the data.

Per Jasper, Pearson garners between $15-$30 for each test administered.  Due to No Child Left Behind and Race For the Top federal mandates, students have to retake the tests over and over again until they achieve an acceptable score.  So kids keep constantly taking tests (without knowing why they failed) and businesses like Pearson profit from processing the perpetual paperwork. 

Presuming this is an accurate assessment, it is ironic to see how Educrat's political correctness works well with crony capitalism in Common Core which imposes a regime which profits from failure to educate well. 

h/t: American Thinker 

Common Core Constitutional Cut Up

Sixth Grade students in Bryant, Arkansas were given a curious assignment as part of theCommon Core curriculum.   The History class at Bryant Middle School had an assignment aimed at inspiring persuasive and engaging presentations.  All the groups of eleven year olds had to do was prioritize and revise the Bill of Rights.

 The History class work is premised on the idea that the government of the United States has determined that the Bill of Rights is outdated.  The assignment asked students to assume the persona of an excerpt on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights named to the "National Revised Bill of Rights (NRBR) Task Force, which is charged with ensuring that the "pursuit of happiness remains guarded in the 21st Century".   The substantial objective of this exercise was to excise two Amendments and add two Amendments.

This exercise was fundamentally flawed on its substance.  This faux NRBR task force was supposed to protect the "pursuit of happiness".  But that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence (1776) not the Bill of Rights.

These middle school students had not been schooled on the reasons why the Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison in 1789 and ratified in 1791.  They have no idea that the Constitution would not have been ratified by several of the States without the prospect of a Bill of Rights.   Obviously, the arguments by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would be far beyond their ken in civics. 

Then there is the inconvenient truth that the Federal Government does not dictate which Amendments are outdated and need to be pruned.  The United States Supreme Court does not inherently decide if laws are outdated, they are tasked with declaring what is constitutional.   Justices do not turn to task forces for their opinions. 

There are mechanisms to revise the Constitution, either through a cumbersome Amendment process ( 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate and 3/4ths ratification by States), a Constitutional Convention or an Article V  Amendments stemming from the States as has been elucidated by Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments (2013) as well as the Madison Coalition.  A federal NRBR task force does not fit into this real life civic scenario, much less deciding what is outdated.

In addition, Amendments are not "pruned",  but they may be superceded by later Amendments. Consider the Eighteenth Amendment (1919) establishing Prohibition of Alcohol and the Twenty-First Amendment (1933) which repealed it.  As Glenn Beck opined: "[T]his document (the Constitution) is great for one reason: they left in the scars."  That way we can remember our mistakes as well as our growth.

But the Bill of Rights Bill of Rights are understood to be to inalienable rights, which are not granted by government but flow from Divine Providence to "We the People".    They ought not be deemed outdated.

Years ago I remember a civics exercise which was part of my secondary school education that somewhat related to this assignment.  Groups of students were told that they were abandoned on a remote island and needed to draw up rules for living together.  The educational objectives may have involved analyzing a situation, group interaction and forensic presentation.   For me, the exercise underlined the genius of the American Constitutional system for ensuring freedom of individuals while living in a larger society, and whet a lifelong interest in public policy.  But it did not presuppose that we were Constitutional experts or ignoring our established norms of our polity.

The Bryant School District is proud to embrace the Common Core standards to improve students literacy and math skills.   Common Core seeks to augment these skill sets through interdisciplinary learning.  Thus this History assignment was supposed to test reading, writing and language skills on informational texts.

A recent rhetorical rumble at the CATO Institute had Chester Finn, Jr. from the Fordham Institute defending Common Core Standards     One of the supposed virtues of Common Core is teaching skill sets not particular knowledge, allowing communities and educators to have subject matter which they deem important.  As this Bryant Middle School 6th grade History exercise shows, it was nominally about the Constitution but had little reference to understanding it while perpetuating the progressive conceit of the Constitution being a Living Document.

Unfortunately, this History exercise was premised on the Patriot Act debate, which is asking a lot of middle school students, particularly without the background knowledge of history or civics.  Moreover, the instructions of the exercise circumvents the Constitution Amendment process in trying to prune and update it.  The subject matter is so cutting edge, it is hard not to believe that the teacher will not color the debate and the student presentations.  Such shaping of opinion in the guise of education shows why some conservatives are so chary about Common Core. 

DOJ Pride--Politically Correct Anarcho-Fascism

In advance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Pride Month in June, the Department of Justice was internally circulating a document entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” 

Considering the Obama Administration’s appeals to progressive politically active homosexual activists and President Obama’s public shift in approval for same sex so called marriage, it is not surprising that the Executive Branch would push “DOJ Pride”which has been around since 1994   to encourage acceptance of non-traditional mores and alternative lifestyles. 

There are some sensible suggestions in the departmental policy propaganda,  such as avoiding offensive jokes (and cracking down on subordinates who engage in such off color humor).  But this extends to adjectives that might be considered pejorative, like “sissy” or “pansy”. 

The DOJ document mandates some double speak.  Managers are mandated not to use terminology like “trannny”, “the gay lifestyle” or “sexual preference” that some might consider offensive.  Manager are told that inclusive words like “partner” or “spouse” ought to be used rather than gender specific “husband” and “wife”.  

Aside from scrubbing language from common descriptive words that have no negative intent but are not inclusive or recognizing traditional social arrangements, DOJ Pride gives a place of pride to alternative lifestyle activists. The document “suggests” that employees should be allowed to attend LGBT-focused professional professional advancement activities, like the LGBT Bar Association and Out and Equal Workplace Advocacy conferences, presumably on company time and the taxpayers dime. 

What is really troubling is mandating what must be done if an employee comes out to you.  Rather than state the law or the Department’s presumed policy of non-discrimination or being judged on your work performance, the pamphlet notes that managers should not judge them or remain silent.  The document deigns that  "Silence will be interpreted as disapproval”.  The only correct response to such unsolicited sharing is “interest and curious.”  And managers are muscled to display LGBT paraphanalia in their office to let their subordinates know that it is a safe workplace.  So if a manager holds contrary mores, they must not state their preference or bite their tongue but ought to approve of their employee’s choices

Moreover the DOJ Pride circular states: 

DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Of course professionalism is expected in conducting oneself in a workplace.  But it is a little troubling about having the expectation that “LGBT employees and THEIR ALLIES” (my emphasis) watching over one’s shoulder.   With the broad swathes of group-think (banishing husband/wife language, or references to sexual preference and the gay lifestyle), this is creating an adversarial environment which accusations of politically incorrect statements (not even using unprofessional expressions for an office place) could well be used as a cudgel against traditional Christians.  It could be an undefensible accusation which does not use a reasonable person’s standards but operates on the contingency if someone claims to be offended. 

This arbitrary and ambiguous standard sounds similar to the new Department of Education edict which lowered the standards of what constitutes sexual harassment”.   A joint letter from the Department of Justice and the Department of Education issued to the University of Montana on May 9th is intended to serve as a blueprint l for colleges across the country.  Sexual harassment is broadly defined as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature"—will now satisfy federal statutory requirements. This explicitly includes "verbal conduct," otherwise known as speech.  This enshrines the right not to be offended as a federal mandate.  

The Wall Street Journal notes that unsuccessful requests for a date, or having a controversial book like “Lolita” assigned to a student, a performance of “The Vagina Monologues” or even a discussion of “gay” marriage could now be construed as sexual harassment under a the low threshold of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.   The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) believes that this resolution agreement will be impossible to enforce in an evenhanded and comprehensive manner.  

In addition, schools may be forced to institute a “sentence first, verdict after” system, since the DOJ/DOJ letter states: 

[A]  university must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/ resolution. Appropriate steps may include separating the accused harasser and the complainant, providing counseling for the complainant and/or harasser, and/or taking disciplinary action against the harasser."

Aren’t you proud of the fabulous work of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice? 

Mark Steyn Pops Off About Punishing for Pop Tart Pistols

Last week, the progressive paranoia about guns combined with American public school zero tolerance policies for a bizarre result.  Joshua Welch, a seven year old boy from Ann Arundel County, Maryland nibbled  his Pop Tart into something that resembled a pistol and saying "Bang, bang".  For this grievous offense, Welch was suspended for creating a "classroom disruption" with an inappropriate gesture.

While substitute hosting Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Mark Steyn took aim at this confluence of nanny state insanity.