Should a tenured professor be fired for online criticism of a graduate student instructor who allegedly told a student not to oppose same-sex marriage in her class? The story from Inside Higher Ed:
In November, [John] McAdams, an associate professor of political science [at Marquette University], wrote a blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. His account was based on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time in class one day on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”
Abbate said McAdams had distorted her actions—and that she wasn’t trying to shut down an argument she disagreed with, but simply had wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle. But conservative blogs spread McAdams’ take on the situation— and she found herself receiving a flood of hateful email messages, some of them threatening.
And from FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education):
Marquette is taking action against McAdams, a political conservative and frequent critic of the administration, supposedly in response to his online criticism of a graduate student instructor who told a student not to oppose same-sex marriage in her class. Marquette had previously suspended McAdams without due process, treated him as though he presented a violent threat, and cancelled his current semester’s classes. …
“If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “While this is more than likely just an excuse to get rid of McAdams, the fact that McAdams’s supposed offense was criticizing a teacher for squelching dissenting opinions in class only makes Marquette’s utter contempt for dissenters more obvious.
It’s hard to say what the truth of the matter is, but this is bad optics even if McAdams over-reached. Some instructors do, sometimes, stifle/shame students for expressing political opinions that they disagree with, and it’s legitimate to call them out on it. And if that’s not what happened in Abbate’s classroom, then she certainly can respond. So the firing of McAdams sounds like politically correct intolerance by those who like to present themselves as defenders of tolerance (just not of views they happen to know are incorrect).
9 Comments for “Intolerance of Intolerance, or Academic Censorship?”
posted by Mike Alexander on
“””Abbate said McAdams had distorted her actions—and that she wasn’t trying to shut down an argument she disagreed with, but simply had wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle.””””
Being a teacher, I can totally see that being the case. It is very easy for a lesson to be lost in the weeds when a tangent gets thrown in.
“””So the firing of McAdams seems as though it could be evidence of politically correct intolerance by those who like to present themselves as defenders of tolerance (just not of views they happen to know are incorrect).””””
Or it could be a response from the administration of someone making something political that wasn’t. Why are Conservatives these days so damned eager to play the victim card. Note how this escalated:
“””In November, [John] McAdams, an associate professor of political science [at Marquette University], wrote a blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. “””
Why on Earth was this a blog post? And an accusitory one at that. This is not the way to hanlde this kind of dissagreement.
“””Some instructors do, sometimes, stifle/shame students for expressing opinions that they disagree with, and it’s legitimate to call them out on it. And if that’s not what happened in Abbate’s classroom, then she certainly can respond. “””
Isn’t this the same mentality that has led to rules that give so much power to students over teachers, where teachers has to bite their tongue at every moment for fear of saying or doing something that one student can complain about and get the teacher in trouble???? Because of this attitude, liberals and conservatives alike have created a school system where teachers no longer hold power in the classroom…. The kids do. And they know it.
posted by Mike Alexander on
PS. This sucks for both instructors…. Worse for McAdams because he got the boot. But he should have handled this in-house, IMO.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Marquette is a Catholic/Jesuit university, private, non-public and religious in mission. I taught at Loyola University of Chicago, a Jesuit university.
Whatever I might think or not about the issues presented in this instance (and as Mike pointed out, the issues involved extend beyond McAdams’ handling of his classroom), I do not think that it is good public policy to extend the reach of government power into the employment decisions of a private, religious institution, at least not so far as to extend the reach of the government into academic issues.
This (as was the University of Chicago example of a few weeks ago, involving one of the most academically rigorous conservative universities in the United States) is a good reminder that issues of “Intolerance of Intolerance, or Academic Censorship” are not limited to “liberal” colleges and universities.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I taught at Loyola University of Chicago, a Jesuit university. I only reason that I mention this is to note that I am familiar with the beast. I suspect that Marquette, like Loyola, holds its decisions regarding academics and faculty close to its chest, and I have no problem with religious universities doing so.
posted by Jorge on
A professor should not be slandering the reputation of faculty at their same university. That’s it’s over an issue of public interest will make people think the university overreacted by firing him, but I do think he should have been disciplined, and severely.
We have in New York a scandal involving a public defender organization that allowed two attorneys to appear, with the name of their organization in a rap video that promoted the killing of police officers. The city threatened to terminate their contract if they didn’t submit a disciplinary plan. They suspended their–I think their executive director–for 60 days, and forced the two attorneys to resign. Why are they throwing the little guys under the bus? Because they’re poison. They were directly responsible for almost costing this organization their livelihoods and their co-workers their jobs.
It is much the same thing here, and on about the same scale.
posted by Houndentenor on
Free speech has limits and one of those limits is that you don’t go around making your boss or even your colleagues look bad. That’s not politics; that’s just stupidity. If you have a problem with company policy (or in this case university policy) you should address those concerns through proper channels. Airing such grievances in public is childish and not productive. It’s odd that we have adults who don’t seem to know this and then want to play victim when such immature behavior blows up in their faces.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—-conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’s equal liberty principle. But conservative blogs spread McAdams’ take on the situation— and she found herself receiving a flood of hateful email messages, some of them threatening.
Um. If this is true, then why on earth in this an issue? Oh, yeah so that some conservatives out their can play the “we are poor, disadvantaged victims” card.
A teacher — especially given the time limits — does have to try and keep the conversation on topic and not spend the entire lesson on how John Rawls’s equality principle applies to say, gay marriage.
This is a common mistake that students will make — if you are talking about John Rawls’s equality principle and how it should apply to a current event issue (i.e. how does his views on equality apply to gay marriage or interracial marriage) then you need to focus your argument on what Rawls actually said/believed. “I think that Rawls equality principles would support legal gay marriage” or (would not) and then make the civil argument based on Rawls theories.
Oftentimes students will try to answer a question such as that with their own personal religious or political or philosophical beliefs.
Now their are certainly many situations on a college campus (even a private one) where that is acceptable, but if you are studying Kant or Rawls or John Stuart Mill in a classroom, the conversation probably needs to be focused on what the actual focus of the lecture is about.
posted by Lori Heine on
Rawlsian theory could possibly be applied to gay marriage. Based, as it is, on the concept of a “veil of ignorance,” from behind which all public policy decisions should be made. If we’re making those decisions from a position that ignores our own particulars, we must make them on behalf of all equally.
Even social conservatives who don’t know what Rawls wrote or who he was sort of tip their hat to him by doggedly insisting that being gay is a choice. His ideas do still resonate powerfully in our society.
Teaching is one of those things almost everybody thinks they could do, but that few really could do well. Other than teaching adult catechism in the Roman Catholic Church for several years, I’ve done little of it. I don’t envy teachers one bit.
posted by Houndentenor on
I try to use that principal. Would I be as outraged if a Democrat said/did this as I am that a Republican did/said it? If you apply the same principals equally you get better outcomes. We’d be far better off if we did this. Instead we have a political culture in which we rationalize “our” side and nitpick the other. It’s not really working out that well for us.