Today's Wall St Journal Editorial on John McAdams' Case

[Pat Speer]

That editorial is a disgrace. It ignores most every key point in order to defend the indefensible.

1. It ignores that the male student was not prohibited from arguing against gay marriage in class because the female student teacher disliked his views, but because it was off-topic, and possibly disruptive to the class.

2. It ignores that the male student was preparing to drop the class anyhow, because he had fallen behind in his work.

3. It ignores that McAdams had found out about the incident involving the male student and the female student teacher through his role as an employee of the University, specifically, through his role as the male student's academic advisor.

4. It ignores that McAdams knew he was supposed to report any problems regarding the female student teacher's performance to her superiors in her department, but that he chose not to do so because he thought they would fail to punish the female student teacher.

5. It ignores that McAdams had used his blog to harass female students in the past, and had been warned not to do so ever again.

6. It ignores that he not only trashed the student teacher on his blog, but misrepresented her actions to do so, and linked to her personal webpage, so that his readers could insult her and abuse her.

In short, McAdam's did not lose his tenure over free speech. He lost it over his deliberately engaging in reckless behavior that could have cost the University untold millions in a lawsuit, should Ms. Abbate had been injured by one of McAdams' followers. McAdams had, after all, used his position with the university to gain information regarding the actions of a female student, and then used this information to publicly humiliate the student, and endanger her well-being. It was the rough equivalent of looking through her files and finding she'd had an abortion, and then posting this on a right-to-life Facebook page in which protests against abortion clinics are planned. His actions were both improper and immoral, and the university acted appropriately.

Thanks for weighing in. But, as is often the case with your posts, you are missing the main point ---in this case, the main point of the Wall Street Journal editorial, which you criticize by bringing up a host of irrelevancies (to which, apparently in the interest of pedagogy, you assign numbers).

But Pat Speer: here's the bottom line: If Smith writes something negative about Jones, and some unhinged supporters of Smith's view then come out of the woodwork and threaten Jones' welfare, or even Jones' life, is that the responsibility of Smith? Should he be seen as a provocateur in a murder plot? Or someone expressing his views in the realm of free speech?

This issue is about free speech, and defining the "legal landscape" in that area of life. The lawyer defending McAdams sees that very clearly, and his letters are really quite impressive. This case is not about whether McAdams is a nice guy, by this or that person's standard; or whether he "should have known better" etc.

Instead of providing us with a catalogue of irrelevancies, I suggest you go back and read your Voltaire.

FWIW: I too regret that an assortment of Internet creeps came out of the woodwork, and threatened Cheryl Abatto's well being. And that's apparently what happened. But there's another principle here, that's what the courts are going to have to address, and that was the focus of the Wall Street Journal editorial.

So again, instead of making numbered lists, go read Voltaire.

DSL

5/7/16 - 3 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

I'm sorry, David, but it is you who should do the reading. Go back to the numerous threads on this, on this site, on JFK Facts, on alt.assassination.JFK, and elsewhere. A number of people, including myself, have demonstrated that this is not a free speech case. No one anywhere believes teachers have the absolute "right" to name students by name on the internet, go to that students' website, read the student's writings on different subjects, and then present the student's thoughts to his followers as examples of what's wrong with the country, along with a link to the student's website to facilitate harassment. This is not a landmark case. Not even close.

Don't confuse freedom of speech with freedom of speech without consequences. John--yes I can call him John as I've spoken to him on occasion, and have traded many a comment with him online--had the absolute right to say or write what he wanted about Ms. Abbate, but he did not have the right to say or write what he wanted without fear of consequences.

Consider Judge Holmes' decision regarding shouting "Fire" in a theater. Well, here we have a situation where an assistant manager--John McAdams--met with a crowd outside the theater after a showing, told them the name of a young trainee working at the candy counter, told the crowd why he thought she was a bad person, and then handed out her phone number so they could call her at home and harass her. He then refused to apologize. Well, duh, of course he got fired. Of course he got fired. Of course he got fired.

He had the right to say what he wanted but the theater management had the right--and obligation--to fire him for it. And let's be honest. McAdams probably knew it was coming and may very well be working the system so he can become some sort of martyr. It would be a shame if it paid off, IMO.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

David:

I am afraid you are way behind the curve on this one.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/right-wing-pressure-in-academia/

I went through McAdams entire blog before I wrote the above article. (And this is the abridged version, the original was much longer and more detailed.) Plain and simple, in his early appearance on Fox, right after the scandal broke, he insinuated that he had written about the affair on his blog once.

As you can see above from the evidence garnered from his own web site, that is simply not the case. He wrote about in many times and he even listed an appearance on talk radio.

I also deal with Abbate's other writings he brought up in that article to further assault her with.

Finally, when you listen to McAdams' lawyers from that rightwing law firm, evidently you either never knew or forgot that in a classroom setting, the first amendment does not apply. And since Marquette is a private university, the idea of academic freedom is limited.

In my talk on this that I did on Len's show, I addressed the canard about first amendment freedom in the classroom. Since I had worked there for thirty years, and gone to college for 8 years, and taught adult school for five years, I knew something about it. I have seen several instructors called in and disciplined on this issue. Its a place where administrative law presides. There is no such thing as absolute free speech in the real world, as Pat noted. But in a classroom, that notion simply does not apply. Its a non sequitur.

McAdams broke every rule of academic process and procedure by doing what he did. And Dean Holz' also pointed out all the falsities and distortions that he had presented to the public in defense of himself.

Edited May 8, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Brad Milch]

Wow...this is getting really weird, really fast. 3 highly respected JFK researchers & authors/1 of which is a top notch webmaster about to get really ugly over an Internet bully/creep that routinely referred to all 3 as 'kooks' at his online cheerleader camp.

FWIW, an Army veterinarian once told me never pick up an injured dog with bare hands. The pain the dog is experiencing will drive the animal to viciously bite down on the Good Samaritan's helping hands, arms or face. If the dog can't be sedated with medication, cover the animal with a heavy blanket first. If no other option is available, humanely put the animal out of its misery.

If DVP is reading this, this is precisely what I meant about WWIII suddenly exploding when the waters seem to be peaceful.

In my opinion, Mr. McAdams consistently presents himself online as a smarta$$ that knows everything there is to know in life & likes to make those he targets appear to be dumb chumps. He's a big boy, he climbed into the bed he now occupies all by himself; he can get out of it by himself too.

Just sayin'...

BM

Edited May 8, 2016 by Brad Milch

[John Crites]

_{What Madams did in this case was not any different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater resulting in damage to another or others .}

_{Free speech does not and never should apply .}

_{This subject of case was not the first time McAdams was reprimanded by the University, so we should be getting to see more of his past behavior via discovery.}

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ah, the age old problem; how to maintain the principle of free speech without giving free rein to the hate mongers trying to incite the mob.

I worked in the bush as a logger for many years. Every camp I ever worked in had a guy just like McAdams. They were troublemakers, and if they weren't trying to start trouble with the company, they were backstabbing some guy to another guy, just to see if they could get a fight going.

The logging companies believed in free speech, though. These guys were allowed to say anything they wanted, just as long as they were on their way out of camp (never to return) when they did so.

There is a pretty simple rule I learned to live by early on; one guys like McAdams never seem to learn.

"F*ck around, you get hurt; treat others with respect and no pain comes your way."

[David Lifton]

Ah, the age old problem; how to maintain the principle of free speech without giving free rein to the hate mongers trying to incite the mob.

I worked in the bush as a logger for many years. Every camp I ever worked in had a guy just like McAdams. They were troublemakers, and if they weren't trying to start trouble with the company, they were backstabbing some guy to another guy, just to see if they could get a fight going.

The logging companies believed in free speech, though. These guys were allowed to say anything they wanted, just as long as they were on their way out of camp (never to return) when they did so.

There is a pretty simple rule I learned to live by early on; one guys like McAdams never seem to learn.

"F*ck around, you get hurt; treat others with respect and no pain comes your way."

I just want to stress again that I started this post not to take sides, but because I opened the Wall Street Journal last Friday, turned to the Op Ed Page (wondering what they might be saying about Trump) and there was an editorial on the case of John McAdams (and the situation with Cheryl Abbate); and I thought it would be of interest to those who read the London Education Forum.

Yes, the WSJ boiled the whole thing down to a free speech issue. Obviously, it is more complicated than that, and so it will be interesting to see how the courts rule.

Also, I read DiEugenio's article in Consorium (referenced in Post #17 on this thread) and it contained a lot of detailed information of which I was unaware. As far as Ward Churchill is concerned, my personal reaction-- to his referring to those working at the World Trade Center as "little Eichmans" (referring to technocrats working in an evil system, the implication being that perhaps they deserved to die, etc.)--is that his analogy was completely inappropriate, disgusting and outrageous, and I can understand why that sparked a series of events leading to the revocation of his tenure. Again: all of this has to do with where we set boundaries when entering into public discourse.

Shifting the focus: I think its outrageous when I see someone claim that we didn't go to the moon, or engage in holocaust denial (and then expect anyone to take seriously what they have to say about the JFK case). The question is where one draws the line.

FWIW: Based on my own occasional communication with McAdams, there is no doubt in my mind that he ever intended hate mail to rain down on Ms. Abbate; i.e., he never foresaw the consequences (to Abbate) of naming her. Maybe he should have. Its easy to make judgements like that--after the fact. Clearly, with the advent of the Internet, there is another dimension to the whole matter of whether this is akin to yelling fire in a theater.

The issue strikes close to home. When, prior to JFK's arrival in Dallas, the Wanted for Treason posters were distributed, was that incitement (to murder) or free speech? What about the black bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that started "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas. . " etc. I don't believe any of that "incited" anyone to harm Kennedy--the plot that took his life was far too well planned (in advance)--but those writings were indicative of the "political temperature" of the right wing fringe element already existing in Dallas. Also, I don't think any of the actual plotters involved in JFK's assassination were happy with either of those things, because--had Kennedy or his staff gotten wind of any of that--it could easily have led to a last minute decision to "skip that city." Just a thought.

DSL

5/9/16 - 5:30 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 9, 2016 by David Lifton

[Michael Walton]

The issue strikes close to home. When, prior to JFK's arrival in Dallas, the Wanted for Treason posters were distributed, was that incitement (to murder) or free speech? What about the black bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that started "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas. . " etc. I don't believe any of that "incited" anyone to harm Kennedy--the plot that took his life was far too well planned (in advance)--but those writings were indicative of the "political temperature" of the right wing fringe element already existing in Dallas. I don't think any of the actual plotters involved in JFK's assassination were happy with either of those things, because--had Kennedy or his staff gotten wind of any of that--it could easily have led to a last minute decision to "skip that city." Just a thought.

Those posters and the newspaper ad were no more incitement than the ones seen here the morning of 11/22 in Dallas:

There's always going to be pro and anti crowds at all political events. All of these, though, had nothing to do with what really happened when the actual coup took place (like you say in your previous post).

PS - FWIW that above photo is one of the more interesting ones when you think about it. Why? Because right next to the NAACP sign is a black guy. Amazing.

[John Crites]

Sure hope the assigned judge feels discovery in relation to his past conduct while with the University is relevant to this case.