Unfortunately, Liberal Keep Being Liberals

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you completely ignored the posts where I proved you wrong about "Liberal Totalitarianism."

Who's running, now?

You proved no such thing.

The actions of the Liberals in the OP, and those in this thread are the real proof of the totalitarian nature of Liberals.

Sorry, that's a school, not the government. It was not sanctioned by anyone involved with the government, nor was it a government function.

How did Liberals in this thread act as totalitarians?

They used free speach to expose you as a mere troll.

Feel free to list the Liberals/Leftists in the thread who posted in opposition to the stifling of debate, the free exchange of ideas, as exposed by the OP....

Go ahead....it won't take much room...



What happens to those who disagree with the doctrines of Leftism in America today?

What happened to the ones in the Soviet?
In Mussolini's Italy?
In Hitler's Germany?

I will reveal even more of Liberalism's communion with their siblings listed above in coming posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. " .... 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."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students





The above blog is by one of the few conservative tenured professors at Marquette, associate professor John McAdams and, probably, in most of academia.

One comment on the fact that the student had to drop the course:

" Being forced to drop PHIL 104 in November is a huge burden on the student. That's a required class. It's a time penalty, it's a financial sanction. That she would make that remark about dropping the class is despicable. She should be fired."
Ibid.


So....it seems that there are still a few out there who recognize the intolerance of Liberals, and are willing to speak up about same.

This thread testifies to the reality that USMB Liberals are ready and willing to toe the party line.

Hence, the term 'Lock-Step Liberals.'

 

[BlindBoo]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. So....tenured Professor McAdams had the nerve to suggest that the university is the place where ideas are to be tested in the crucible of debate....


....guess how the Liberal apparatchiks responded to Professor McAdams' 'nerve'.....


C'mon....guess.....



They didn't put him in a gulag, or up against the wall to be shot.....nah, American Liberals are far too.....nuanced....for that:

That's right....they took away this academia's Paul Revere's right to earn a living.



" The McAdams blog post captured national media attention and international attention from widely divergent groups: largely conservative free speech advocates supporting McAdams' right to blog his opinions and a student's right to argue against gay marriage in a class, and professors and teaching assistants who criticized McAdams for publicly calling out a graduate student and exposing her to political labeling and public condemnation.

The university on Tuesday notified McAdams, who teaches political science, that he is under review, has been relieved of all duties and must stay off campus until further notice unless he receives written permission from the dean of the Klingler College of Letters and Sciences."
Teaching assistant leaving Marquette amid McAdams controversy


a. "On December 12th, 2014, McAdams was placed on indefinite academic leave from Marquette University and was suspended from all teaching and faculty duties.[10]This indefinite suspension came about after McAdams publicly criticized a graduate instructor in the philosophy department for her teaching practices." John C. McAdams - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


b. "Asked to clarify what would constitute a suspension, spokesman Brian Dorrington said: "Our definition of suspension is without pay." Marquette expands on John McAdams controversy



Liberalism's mantra: "You vil learn to obey orders....and never qvestion!!!"

 

[BlindBoo]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it."

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

I get your point, commie.
Too bad you don't have an American perspective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

Do you have any evidence that most liberals in America want to outlaw debate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

Do you have any evidence that most liberals in America want to outlaw debate?

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

I get your point, commie.
Too bad you don't have an American perspective.

Namecalling, when offered as your only response, is a concession you have nothing to offer in defense of your position

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

I get your point, commie.
Too bad you don't have an American perspective.

Namecalling, when offered as your only response, is a concession you have nothing to offer in defense of your position

...says the liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

Do you have any evidence that most liberals in America want to outlaw debate?

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Why don't you tell me what truth, precisely, you're referring to, and I will respectfully respond with

1. whether or not I agree it's the truth, and,

2. if I do, whether or not I am afraid of it?

Fair enough?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

I get your point, commie.
Too bad you don't have an American perspective.

Namecalling, when offered as your only response, is a concession you have nothing to offer in defense of your position

...says the liar.

Which part is a lie? That you called me a name, or that you are conceding you nothing to offer as a defense of your position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marquette is a private, Jesuit university.

If you have a problem with Professor Abbate, maybe you should take it to Marquette.

Maybe you should to a private business employing anyone they want.

Maybe you should object to a Catholic business employing anyone they want.

I get your point, commie.
Too bad you don't have an American perspective.

Do you hate the Jesuits for allowing such a person to teach at one of their institutions?

Or do you hate the concept of private colleges for allowing such a teacher at one of their institutions?

 

[BlindBoo]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it."

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

The only conversation that was taped was done so surreptitiously after class.

The thread is a fine example of Yellow Journalism, a Witch hunt based on lies, spread by loyalist and fauxraged subjects.

Turn off Fox
Bad News for America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it."

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

The only conversation that was taped was done so surreptitiously after class.

The thread is a fine example of Yellow Journalism, a Witch hunt based on lies, spread by loyalist and fauxraged subjects.

Turn off Fox
Bad News for America.

Just admit the truth about Liberals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As Paul Harvey use to say, and now for the rest of the story...........

A philosophy graduate student and instructor at Marquette University is the target of a political attack initiated by one of her students, facilitated by a Marquette political science professor, and promulgated by certain advocacy organizations.

Cheryl Abbate, a Marquette PhD student working on a dissertation in ethics, has provided me with information about the series of events leading to the campaign against her. She currently teaches an ethical theory class. At one class meeting in October, the topic was Rawls’s equal liberty principle. To help elucidate the principle, Abbate asked her students for examples of policies that would violate the principle. Suggestions from students included a ban on marijuana use and seat belt laws. One of the students also suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate this principle, since it involves denying a group of people a basic right the granting of which would not at all limit the liberties of others. Other policies were then discussed.

After class, a student approached Abbate and complained that she had not allowed a discussion of gay marriage and so he was not able to voice an objection he had to it. His objection concerned research which purported to show that children raised by same-sex parents turn out worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. Abbate pointed out that adoption by same-sex couples had not been under discussion, and that, further, there was no sound empirical research she knew of that supported his claim. She invited him to email her references to such research. She also noted that certain objections to gay marriage would be offensive to homosexual students in the class.

During the conversation, Abbate noticed that the student kept rephrasing what she was saying in terms of “homophobia.” She also noticed that he was holding his phone towards her. She asked if he was recording the conversation. He said he wasn’t. She then asked to see the phone, and it was, indeed, recording the conversation without her permission.

At the next class meeting, Abbate, thinking that other students might have thoughts similar to the one who approached her, decided to address such concerns directly. She mentioned the objection, described her replies to it, elaborated on the criticisms of the study the student had been referencing (by Mark Regnerus, which has been thoroughly discredited), and noted that class time is limited and that there isn’t time to adequately discuss all topics of interest

A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student.

......

There are certainly interesting pedagogical questions about how to discuss potentially offensive topics without violating harassment policies (and I encourage such questions be taken up in the comments). However, the event at the center of this controversy does not appear to be one of speech being shut down because it is offensive. Rather, the comment was off-topic and based on false claims, and the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics). Further, as any professor knows, points may be made in offensive and inoffensive ways, and particular students may be more or less skilled at putting their ideas into words that make for a constructive contribution to the lesson. In light of these factors, it is well within the rights and responsibilities of the instructor to manage classroom discussion in a way she judges conducive to learning.

An additional and important issue here is what Marquette University is or is not doing to protect Ms. Abbate. Not only are false and damaging things being said about her by a professor at her own university (not the first time this professor has attacked people online; see this) and by various organizations parroting his claims, but she has now become the target for viciously hostile comments on some websites. Here is a screenshot from one:

Philosophy Grad Student Target of Political Smear Campaign several updates Daily Nous

"A couple of weeks later, Marquette associate political science professor John McAdams wrote a blog post about the incident. He apparently based his post solely on the report of the complaining student."

And now for the REAL rest of the story:

"In writing this post, did you take account of the student's side of the exchange _and_ the professor's side or just the student's?

I wrote Abbate and asked her for her side of the story.

She failed to respond.

Remember that all the after-class exchange that I quoted was based on a recorded audio of the exchange.

Do you believe that gay marriage can be discussed in class, even if some students might made arguments against it?

Or do you believe that politically correct victim groups should be protected against ever hearing arguments which which they are presumed to disagree?"
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students



Now let's have your comment on the key part of the OP:
"She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

Further in the link......

UPDATE 4 (11/19/14): McAdams states on his blog that he wrote to Abbate and asked for her side of the story. He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story, he would have waited to hear back from her. What was the rush? Let me also share that his email (which I have a copy of) begins with the line, “I’m working on a story about an after class confrontation you had with a student.” Notice how this assumes there is actually a news story here, prior to hearing from Abbate. That doesn’t quite inspire confidence in the fairness or accuracy of his reporting.

Furthermore your key point is being contested as a lie.

" He wrote her at approximately 9am on Sunday, November 9th and published the original piece on his blog 9 hours later. One might think that the professor would know that this is an insufficient window of time, for it would be wise for a graduate student instructor to consult her chair or other administrators at the school (about school policy, or FERPA, good teaching practice, etc.) before divulging information about student behavior, in writing, to a third party such as himself, and that people sometimes are difficult to contact or check their emails less frequently on Sunday. If he was really interested in hearing her side of the story,...blah blah blah..."

1. So...now you have retreated from the suggestion that he was going on the student's side only....

2. As I just posted, he was writing "based on a recorded audio of the exchange." So what is this garbage of "her side"?????



3. You still haven't responded to the key part of the 'story:'
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it."

That's Liberalism, and that's what the thread is about.

What a good little totalitarian you are.

The only conversation that was taped was done so surreptitiously after class.

The thread is a fine example of Yellow Journalism, a Witch hunt based on lies, spread by loyalist and fauxraged subjects.

Turn off Fox
Bad News for America.

Just admit the truth about Liberals.

We are smarter than you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even the Washington Post recognized the Nazi-like atmosphere at the Liberal institution.

Watch how the WaPo rips the actions of Marquette, and every Liberal in this thread:


14. "... those actions strikes me as quite improper. Marquette is a private university, and thus not bound by the First Amendment; and Wisconsin is not one of the states that generally restricts private employer retaliation based on an employee’s speech.


Still, Marquette frames itself as a university that respects academic freedom and free speech rights. Acting this way towards a faculty member who publicly expresses his opinions on an important issue, including when the issue involves what he sees as improper suppression of student views by a colleague, stifles that freedom.


It not only deters faculty speech critical of colleagues, but it also tends to suppress student speech critical of faculty, and student and faculty speech on controversial subjects more broadly.


If you knew that criticizing a teacher this way could lead even a senior tenured faculty member to be suspended from teaching and ordered off campus, would you as a junior faculty member feel comfortable criticizing homosexuality or gay rights? Would you as a student feel comfortable criticizing homosexuality or gay rights, or criticizing instructors who you think are intolerant of certain student views on ethics and politics?

.... Marquette seems to be behaving quite badly here." Marquette suspends prof 8217 s teaching orders him off campus - The Washington Post


And that is exactly what this thread is about, and what the thread has shown.


So....we have seen today how all of you good little Liberals vote for indoctrination over education.....and the demise of the late, great experiment that was America.