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.  

Ciscentrism and Other PC Newspeak Conceits

Recently,  Campus Reform made headlines as it reported upon a "Bias Free Language Guide" posted on an official University of New Hampshire website  which noted problematic words in American (suggested substitute "Residents of America") lexicon. Such inclusive language sought to encourage "[C]ommunication that does not stereotype or demean people based on personal characteristics.”  This suggested UNC PC Newspeak rationale is that:  “Each step of inclusion moves us closer to a full democracy”.

To that end, campus skulls full of mush were encouraged to use non-binary pronouns with spivak pronunciations like ze/zie/hir as are "often used by trans, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming people.”  So there's nothing like paying thousands of dollars for an university education, only to finish sounding as if one has a speech impediment  (another verboten phrase - perhaps unconventional pronunciations) engender conversation on inclusive language use.  Would you like fries with that?


Even referring to gender-neutral bathrooms was considered "problematic" to the authors of the "Bias Free Language Guide" as  it reflects ciscentrism, which is defined as a " pervasive and institutionalized system that places transgender people in the ‘other’ category and treats their needs and identities as less important than those of cisgender people.”  Such ciscentrism can also include the lack of gender neutral lockers and residences.  Perhaps this will be featured on "Caitliyn" (ne Bruce) Jenner's new E! television reality show "I am Cait". .Bully for zie/zi (sic).

The UNH Bias Free Language Guide discourages the use of mothering and fathering in order to avoid gendering a non-gendered activity. This politically correct non-gendering language is about as convoluted as Jack Byrnes "Milking Cats" colloquy with Greg Focker in Meet the Parents (2000).Wonder if these PC philological protagonists would be as deft in intellectually accommodating  Stan aka Loretta's right to have babies as portrayed in  Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" (1979)

Demonyms are sensitive subjects because of the sense of latent American imperialism. If one were to identify as "American", that precludes other countries in the hemisphere. Hence, the Bias Free Guide Language Guide suggests "Resident of America".  But that frankly seems incorrect, as it excludes the other hemispheric inhabitants of the continents.  If one were to say "Resident of the United States", it also excludes Mexicans still residing South of the Rio Grande, as they live in "Los estados unidos Mexicanos".  So once again, there is the quandary of including an uninclusive identification: "Resident of the United States of America" or "American" for short.

Of course it would be crass to politically correct types to refer to American citizens.  But it is problematic to refer to "illegal aliens".  It may be acceptable to refer to such persons as "undocumented immigrant" but it is recommended to call them "person seeking asylum" or "refugee" instead.  The UNH PC Newspeak makes saying foreigner problematic, as it is deemed better to say "international people".

As concerned as the UNH Bias Free Language Guide is about people, there is little doubt that our PC betters would still refer to abortion victims  as "clups of cells" or perhaps of fetus (of what?) rather than unborn persons so as not to offend progressive womyn (sic).

Examples of Bias Free Language Guide's Problematic Lexicon 

Other problematic phrases included: "sexual preference", "speech impediment", overweight (as arbitrary), "freshman", (why not sophomore -- a wise fool?), "chairman" and "dumb".  It's a good thing that the latter expression was denounced as there would be no way in UNH PC Newspeak to convey the merit of this Bias Free Language Guide.

After a few days of "problematic" publicity in conservative media circles such as Laura Ingraham, University of New Hampshire President Mark W. Huddleston made an emphatic statement about free speech. This peon to free speech should seem unremarkable in a state with a motto of "Live Free or Die".

Huddleston's denials, however, seem somewhat hollow as the Bias Free Language Guide was part of UNH official website material and it referred to Counseling Center training on" Microagressions: Subtle but Detrimental".  The Bias Free Language Guide seems like companion scholarship, if that is politically correct to say.




Universities ought to be citadels of free speech and a Chatauqua of ideas. Alas today it seems to foster the inculcation of  anarchistic intellectual indoctrination under a polity governance of raised eyebrows. Sorry to say that ciscentrism sounds like politically correct crap which poses as inclusive language but really redefines rhetoric to an unreality that is antithetical.  No wonder George Orwell opined about the risks about truth telling in a delusional society.

h/t: Campus Reform
      LifeZette

Dogged Dhimmitude in Canuckistan

Still from footage of Allain Eintoss Arrest  (Source: Blazing Cat Fur)

Allain Eintoss, a Toronto resident,was assaulted and  arrested for walking his leashed therapy dog in a public park because it offended the sensibilities of Muslim protestors. During this year’s annual  Al Quds protest  in Queen’s Park, Toronto, in front of the Legislature in Ontario, Canada, which rallied anti-Israel sentiments against the supposed apartheid in the holy city of Jerusalem.

There was also a counter protest by supporters of Israel and the Jewish Defense League on the other end of the Park. The Metropolitan Toronto Police and the Ontario Provincial Police separated the demonstrators at opposite ends of the park with a bicycle barrier.

Allain Eintoss certainly sympathizes with the pro  Israel camp but proclaims himself as a big supporter of free speech went to Queen’s Park to walk around the public space.  He walked on both sides of the park his English Mastiff named “Cupcake”  with no problem for over an hour without incident.  Eintoss  interacted with a couple of girls on the Al Quds side who enquired about the type of dog was his Cupcake.

Then Eintoss heard a voice telling him that he could not walk there with his dog.  Eintoss replied that it was Canada and he could walk where-ever he wanted.  The police began to talk to Eintoss and then he was punched in the chest. Eintoss pushed back and the police jumped in and detained Eintoss.  The policeman was agitated as he accused Eintoss of inciting a riot and being insensitive presumably for  for having a dog around Muslims.  The lawman blustered that the incident would be going into Eintoss’s file and would be considered a prior if there was trouble the next time.  After consulting with his superiors, the policeman noted that Eintoss could either walk away or be jailed.  Since it was a Saturday, there was no magistrate available to paper the arrest so if the detainee took the latter choice that Eintoss would be jailed until Monday.  Eintoss took the first choice and left.




If Eintoss’s actions were exacerbating a volatile situation, a word to the wise would have sufficed rather than throwing the book at someone who is assaulted.  The petty police brutality and bluster seems very familiar for LEOs who are too full of themselves stationed around halls of power.  But that fact is minor league compared to the diminishment of rights in a democracy by catering to political correctness and submitting to dhimmitude.

Eintoss believed that in a free country he could walk where-ever he wanted to in a public space.  It seems not so much, especially if an agitator from favored or protected minorities like Islamists object.  In a Caliphate environment, non-Muslims are second-class citizens who are only tolerated if they pay the Jizya tax.  Nanny State political correctness just hastens the practice.

The other factor to contemplate is that Canada, and Ontario in particular, prides itself on an aggressive application of Human Rights Commission cases against intolerant speech.  In 2007, columnist to the world Mark Steyn wrote a supposed inflammatory column for MacLean’s Magazine entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam”.  This insult was not actionable for a deprivation of Steyn’s liberty but was still condemned as irresponsible journalism for suggesting Islamophobic ideas.  To which, Steyn countered:

[E]xplicitly threatens to reduce them to a maple-flavoured variant of Pravda... [A]n alarming proportion of the Dominion's ‘media workers’ seem relatively relaxed about playing the role of eunuchs to the Trudeaupian sultans.

One would think that in a Province which prides itself on a vigorous Human Rights Commission and protecting people from being offended that the Ontario government might look askance at the defamatory rhetoric which has been a part of the Toronto Al Quds rallies since there inception in 1979.  Despite video evidence by Environment Minister Peter Kent (Tory-Thornhill, Ont.) from last year’s Al Quds, the Sergeant at Arms still granted the permit as the footage was insufficient to deny a permit.

OK but by the same token someone who claims being offended by walking a therapy dog in a public space is enough to deprive citizens of their liberties.  With upside down sensibilities like that, maybe the lyrics to the national anthem should be changed to “Uh, Oh Canadistan”

If the Political Correctness want more proof of the intolerance of the Al Quds crowd, consider the anonymous phoned in death threats to Eintoss after the incident.  Is “We are going to kill you, you dirty jew" sufficient or does there have to be a decapitation first before you ignore it?

h/t: Blazing Cat Fur
     Media Research Center

UK Must be PC on IPs

Adrian Smith, an 18 year veteran of the Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust (near Manchester, United Kingdom), was significantly demoted on his job for making moral comments on Facebook.


In October, Smith for daring to post on his own time on a private Facebook page that he thought that same sex “marriages” in churches was “an equality too far”.   When a colleague followed up on whether Smith disapproved of “Gay church marriages go too far”, Smith commented:

I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church. The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriage to the same sex then that is up to the state; but the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.

These comments were brought to the attention of a supervisor.  Subsequently, Smith was demoted from a £35,000 managerial post to a £21,000 position.  The only reason that he was not fired outright was because of his long record of service. 


Smith tried to appeal in court a seemingly out of proportion disciplinary decision that violated his free speech rights.  But in Manchester County Court, District Judge Charles Khan ruled that Smith could not rely on a human rights claim and could only pursue the case under a breach of contract theory.  If this strict separation between public and private employers holds, it does not bode well for the British cases before the European Human Rights Court about wearing a cross on the job.


Even though Smith was disciplined because the Housing Council was worried about its reputation acting as a public housing provider, the judge ruled that employment practices were a private function hence it was not covered by the Human Rights Act.  The lawsuit will continue to be pursued for Mr. Smith by The Christian Institute, a non-profit organization seeking to defend the religious liberty of Christians.


The fracas over Adrian Smith’s Facebook posting raises some interesting issues.  Are Christians’ religious liberties being respected by western secular governments?  Conversely, are other moral or religious perspectives privileged over orthodox Christian beliefs?  What is the demarcation line between a persons freedom of speech outside of the office and “towing the line” regarding moral and political issues?  If employees need to tow a line, is there a manifesto of beliefs or it is a politically correct fluidity, as it depends on what favored protected class poses the greatest threat? 


Even in America, which has freedom of speech, the press and religion enshrined as the first thing enumerated in the Bill of Rights, Adrian Smith’s case could give a cause for pause.  The Obama Administration’s Contraception Mandate dictates that Catholic Charities must offer (and indirectly finance) services that are morally repugnant.   Prospective employers are now demanding that applicants surrender their Facebook passwords prior to hiring for inspection.  

It may be time to break out the Aldous Huxley: “Unorthodoxy threatens more than the life of a mere individual; it strikes at Society itself."  It’s a brave new world.  If that’s the case, stop the world, I want to get off.  But it is said that the world is what you make of it. This episode give a clear blueprint of what not to do.