University Moves to Fire Conservative Professor Over His Political Views
-
More *tolerance* from the left:
Marquette University has moved to suspend and then fire Professor John McAdams for backing a student who tried to defend man-woman marriage when a leftist teaching assistant shut the student down.
In the fall of 2014, junior faculty member Cheryl Abbate told a student, who secretly recorded the exchange, that his defense of man-woman marriage was an unacceptable topic in her ethics class and compared his views to racism. She said, “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.” And then she told the student he should drop the class.
On this very popular blog, Professor McAdams outed the incident and charged the teaching assistant with “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.”
It was announced this week that a “diverse” faculty committee recommended to the university president that McAdams be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016 and that he lose his job unless he admits “guilt” and apologized “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, the demand is “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.”
The ever quotable and crusty McAdams compared the demand to the “Inquisition, in which victims who ‘confessed’ they had been consorting with Satan and spreading heresy would be spared execution.” He called the demand a violation of “black letter guarantees of academic freedom embodied in University statutes.”
He also charges the university president with dishonesty since the faculty panel did not require such an admission of guilt or an apology. McAdams said such a statement from him would amount to a “loyalty oath” and he says he will not submit.
He also referred to Marquette’s “Catholic mission” as nothing more than a “marketing gimmick.”
-
need to know more of the original incident to have an opinion. If the original paper stuck t defining marriage as what this person thinks it ought to be, that's fine that's his opinion. But if in making his case he used inflammatory language toward homosexual couples than the ethics teacher was right. There would be no discussion if the student wrote a paper about Aryan superiority and in making that case brought up racial and/or ethnic stereotypes. It wouldn't be tolerated. The right would be probably be equally incensed if their precious little jews were the subject of such a paper that insinuated Hitler might have been on to something.
-
A little lengthy but here is more of the story:
Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students
A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.
She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”
The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.
The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, and for a while, Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.
So far, this is the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.Certain Opinions Banned
Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage? The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.
Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”
She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.
She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then invited the student to drop the class.
Which the student is doing.Shutting People Up
Abbate, of course, was just 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.
As Charles Krauthammer explained:The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.Of course, only certain groups have the privilege of shutting up debate. Things thought to be “offensive” to gays, blacks, women and so on must be stifled. Further, it’s not considered necessary to actually find out what the group really thinks. “Women” are supposed to feel warred upon when somebody opposes abortion, but in he real world men and women are equally likely to oppose abortion.
The same is true of Obama’s contraception mandate.
But in the politically correct world of academia, one is supposed to assume that all victim groups think the same way as leftist professor.The “Offended” Card
Groups not favored by leftist professors, of course, can be freely attacked, and their views (or supposed views) ridiculed. Christians and Muslims are not allowed to be “offended” by pro-gay comments.
(Muslims are a protected victim group in lots of other ways, but not this one.)
And it is a free fire zone where straight white males are concerned.Student Seeks Redress
The student first complained to the office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and talked to an Associate Dean, one Suzanne Foster. Foster sent the student to the Chair of the Philosophy Department, saying that department chairs usually handle such cases. The chair, Nancy Snow, pretty much blew off the issue.
Interestingly, both Snow and Foster have been involved in cases of politically correct attacks on free expression at Marquette.
Foster took offense when one of her colleagues referred to a dinner which happened to involve only female faculty as a “girls night out.” He was reprimanded by then department chair James South for “sexism,” but the reprimand was overturned by Marquette.
Snow, in a class on the “Philosophy of Crime and Punishment” tried to shut up a student who offered a response, from the perspective of police, to Snow’s comments about supposed “racial profiling.” The student said talk about racial profiling makes life hard for cops, since it may make minorities hostile and uncooperative.
Snow tried to silence him, claiming “this is a diverse class.” This was an apparent reference to two black students in the class, who were, Snow assumed, likely offended on hearing that.
The majority of the class, contacted by The Marquette Warrior, felt the comments were reasonable and relevant, but Snow insisted that the student write an apology to the black students.
So how is a student to get vindication from University officials who hold the same intolerant views as Abbate?Conclusion
Thus the student is dropping the class, and will have to take another Philosophy class in the future.
But this student is rather outspoken and assertive about his beliefs. That puts him among a small minority of Marquette students. How many students, especially in politically correct departments like Philosophy, simply stifle their disagreement, or worse yet get indoctrinated into the views of the instructor, since those are the only ideas allowed, and no alternative views are aired?
Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/11/marquette-philosophy-instructor-gay.html
-
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
-
I think issues should be debated and not banned especially at institutions of learning. Even if someone has a view that white people and black people shouldn't marry (the example Chris uses) don't ban it debate it. The answer to offensive speech is more speech.
-
It's always the liberals who want to ban ideas, mostly because they have enough
political power that they can entertain the idea of banning ideas THEY DON'T LIKE,
although, they accrued their political power via the acceptance of their right to have their
own stupidass ideas.
They just hate everybody else's ideas that are stupidass, and want to ban them.....
-
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
British are guilty of imperialism and we're implicit in the slave trade. British points of view should be banned. End of discussion, limey, piss off.Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
British are guilty of imperialism and we're implicit in the slave trade. British points of view should be banned. End of discussion, limey, piss off.Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
British are guilty of imperialism and we're implicit in the slave trade. British points of view should be banned. End of discussion, limey, piss off.
If we're ignoring every country that had slaves in its past, I'm not even sure which countries we have left. Maybe some of the newer ones?
-
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
Thought control. Because someone thinking something different than you is worse than murder!
-
British are guilty of imperialism and we're implicit in the slave trade. British points of view should be banned. End of discussion, limey, piss off.Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
British are guilty of imperialism and we're implicit in the slave trade. British points of view should be banned. End of discussion, limey, piss off.
Nice...
-
I'm not surprised it's flying over your heads.
-
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
Basically, some views should be banned. I know that won't go across well with some of you 'freedom of speech above all else' types, but it's true. Like was said, if the point was about how black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, or how women shouldn't be able to vote, or it's fine to lay off old people just because they're old (the DePodesta philosophy), there'd be no discussion. But because it's about gay rights, which is still a relatively recent change in civil rights, people still have their tails up.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what genitalia someone has or what they do with it.
Well, you're English.
-
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
-
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
The Catholic universities care more about how they look than they care about open and honest academic discourse.
-
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
I got into an argument years ago with our local newspaper editor over a letter to the editor I wrote. He took it upon himself to edit my letter to the point it didn't even hardly mean what I had meant it to say. He never added to the bottom of my letter that it had been edited. He told me they were a private newspaper and didn't violate my free speech and if I checked it out I would find out he was right. I did check it out and he was right although most of the people I spoke with told me he should have noted he edited my letter.
-
-
-
This came up in my feed working in Higher Ed so I thought I'd weigh in. First off, to the surprise of many of you probably, I'm against this decision. I don't agree with the guys opinions but I don't think this promotes what Higher Education is about in my professional opinion anyway (which if people wanna hear more about I can)
However, a very important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that Marquette is a private, Catholic university by definition. Just like private business, they are allowed to make decisions on firing just like any company would. This stuff happens at insert business all the time, but in Higher Education it usually gets more latitude. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from saying stuff that gets you fired.
I got into an argument years ago with our local newspaper editor over a letter to the editor I wrote. He took it upon himself to edit my letter to the point it didn't even hardly mean what I had meant it to say. He never added to the bottom of my letter that it had been edited. He told me they were a private newspaper and didn't violate my free speech and if I checked it out I would find out he was right. I did check it out and he was right although most of the people I spoke with told me he should have noted he edited my letter.
I got into an argument years ago with our local newspaper editor over a letter to the editor I wrote. He took it upon himself to edit my letter to the point it didn't even hardly mean what I had meant it to say. He never added to the bottom of my letter that it had been edited. He told me they were a private newspaper and didn't violate my free speech and if I checked it out I would find out he was right. I did check it out and he was right although most of the people I spoke with told me he should have noted he edited my letter.
Hard Truth? A lot of shit shouldn't happen, but it does. People and institutions act in their self-interest first and foremost.
Again, I'm not for this firing though, it goes against my opinions as a professional in the field.
-
"academic freedom" only applies to leftists/progressives/marxists/sumbeiches.
The left demands to have sole control of rights. A lot like the nazis. They could do anything
they wanted, including kill anyone for any reason, and deny anyone at any time of their rights.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login