![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/AcademicFreedom.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Some time ago, a professor made a blog post, chastising a teacher for shutting down a student who advocated for, well, traditional marriage. Arguing for heterosexual marriage is a faux pas on campus today, and the school formed a committee to investigate this \u201cinappropriate\u201d behavior.<\/p>\n
A few posts on a blog. Seven members on the committee. How much did it take to come to a conclusion?<\/a><\/p>\n Four days of hearings! Months of deliberations! A hundred and twenty three page report\u2026over some blog posts. You better believe the committee was being browbeaten, and kudos to them for holding on to their integrity.<\/em><\/p>\n –Well, holding onto their integrity for a few months, anyway.<\/em><\/p>\n Now, I do feel the professor made a big mistake here, in that he named the teacher of the course. Our current world is flat out nuts, and while shutting down discussion of the value of traditional marriage is politically correct these days\u2026it\u2019s possible that will change. Because we now live in a world where a \u201cmistake\u201d made years before can destroy you, naming that teacher can negatively impact her career years from now. Put yourself in the teacher\u2019s shoes here: if she allowed open discussion of possible benefits to traditional marriage, she could have been hauled into the Diversity Palace for re-education<\/a>. It\u2019s a no win situation on campus for this stuff.<\/p>\n He should apologize for that, at least. That\u2019s my opinion, and it didn\u2019t take over a hundred pages of explanation, multiple hearings, and months of consideration.<\/p>\n Anyway, based on the committee\u2019s \u201cfair and balanced\u201d ruling (and I assure the reader, taking that level of effort is a huge flag that the committee was, eventually, corrupted), they suspended the professor, and tried to force a full apology from him for advocating for traditional marriage.<\/p>\n He won\u2019t do it<\/a>. He maintains that he shouldn\u2019t be punished for following the mission of his Jesuit school. Thing is, like most schools, it\u2019s been taken over by a wandering band of plunderers who care nothing for the school\u2019s mission:<\/p>\n \u201cAs for so-called Catholic universities, first you have to understand that Jesuits are thin on the ground these days,\u201d McAdams continued. \u201cThe president of Marquette\u2019s not a Jesuit, the provost isn\u2019t, the dean of arts and sciences isn\u2019t\u2026 there are so few Jesuits that so-called Jesuit institutions pretty much aren\u2019t run by Jesuits.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n As always, the school believes they were perfectly correct in punishment. The professor could appeal the school\u2019s ruling\u2026but this would lead to the school forming another loaded committee and browbeating that committee as well.<\/p>\n Instead of wasting time in a thoroughly corrupt system, the professor took his case to the Wisconsin supreme court, claiming, quite reasonably, that his contract does allow him freedom from expression without such punishments as \u201cpermanent unpaid suspension\u201d\u2014he\u2019s tenured, so he can\u2019t, technically be fired, but such distinctions are meager next to being not being paid or allowed to do any work.<\/p>\n Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Marquette professor John McAdams in free speech case<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n They ruled the university will need to give the professor over 3 years of back pay. I feel the need to mention these sorts of abuses go on by schools on a fairly regular basis\u2026most professors just suck it up, because they can\u2019t afford to go that many years without a paycheck. I also point out that this is all tenure means: they can\u2019t fire him, but they don\u2019t need to pay him, either.<\/p>\n “The undisputed facts show that the University breached its contract with Dr. McAdams when it suspended him for engaging in activity protected by the contract’s guarantee of academic freedom,” said the majority opinion written by Justice Daniel Kelly.<\/em><\/p>\n The article I\u2019ve linked actually spends most of its time covering how the professor is wrong in his beliefs (it\u2019s fascinating how much slant is here), but I include the \u201cmoney shot\u201d above.<\/p>\n The school, amazingly enough, is unrepentant despite the court ruling against them:<\/p>\n “At Marquette University, we are proud that we have taken a stand for our students, our values and our Catholic, Jesuit mission,” it said.<\/em> I\u2019d warn the professor that his days are clearly numbered, but he\u2019s 72, so I suppose he\u2019ll be satisfied with winning on principles here. Still, this will be something of a pyrrhic victory for free speech:<\/p>\n The university says it ultimately wants to ensure “those whom it invests with the responsibility and privilege of teaching its students abide by its governing principles.”<\/em><\/p>\n The gentle reader should understand the above to mean that future contracts will give the university broad leeway to punish faculty who deviate from the narrative, in this case, dare to advance the notion that heterosexual marriage might not be a bad thing.<\/p>\n As an aside, I think two competent people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to enter into whatever voluntary contracts they wish. I also think religions should be allowed to ask whatever they want of their voluntary competent followers. It didn\u2019t take 4 months for me to come to those conclusions, either.<\/p>\n So, let\u2019s summarize here everything that happened, and the fallout:<\/p>\n First, a professor makes some blog posts advocating for a belief system consistent with his institution, and makes the mistake of naming one person who shut down classroom discussion of an aspect of those beliefs.<\/p>\n Second, the university uses their corrupt system to punish the professor, beyond all interpretation of reasonable justice.<\/p>\n Third, the professor takes his case to a less corrupt system, and overturns the ruling based on written contract law. This is touted as a win for freedom of speech, and academic freedom.<\/p>\n Fourth, the university changes future contracts so they can disallow future free speech and shut down future academic freedom. There\u2019s nothing anyone can do to stop this.<\/p>\n Finally, the university will spend a fortune on a new fiefdom, filled with Vice Presidents of Shutting Down Freedom, which in turn will come up with ways to fix the old contracts so they can retroactively shut down academic freedom as well. There\u2019s nothing anyone can do to stop this, either.<\/p>\n So, yes, enjoy your minor victory professor, you\u2019ve earned it. I maintain the system is too corrupted at this point to allow for anything better, and that things will only become worse on this campus, just as they are on many others.<\/p>\n www.professorconfess.blogspot.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n“Marquette will comply with the terms of this decision, and it does not change the university\u2019s commitment to the safety and well-being of our students.”<\/em>
\nThe statement concluded:<\/em>
\n“This case has always been about Associate Professor John McAdams\u2019 conduct toward a student teacher. The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages.”<\/em><\/p>\n