10-02-2015, 07:47 AM
Geesh. Looking at this, what I'm seeing is McAdams was grossly in violation of University codes of conduct for faculty. However the issue was a fair and open one for debate and one involving free speech issues. I think Marquette is using words like "inclusive", "holistic", and "civility" in a somewhat subjective and arbitrary way. That's a judgment call by Marquette but once you get to the hardball level of public remonstration and defenestration you then incur greater Constitutional terms that require inquiry into whether McAdams was roughly handled and his rights were violated. I think we all agree that McAdams' problem was the accumulative result of his thinking his fame from assassination denial had made him a sort of right-wing radio talk show personality who kind of forgot where he was, never the less there are still free speech issues here that can't be ignored. Especially at the "tolerant" academic level Marquette claims to espouse. I'm not sure I don't see Marquette trying to convert some of its own liabilities into blaming McAdams for expressing them, or better yet, how he expressed them. Perhaps this is bad conduct by both sides. Universities should always err on the side of free speech no matter how difficult that is with someone like McAdams.