MARQUETTE Zea sae UNIVERSITY Miwaute, Wisconsin 6300-1881 Pare 72 Warqutte sty Be The Diffrence. CONFIDENTIAL March 24, 2016 Dr. John McAdams 3559 N. Murray Ave. Shorewood, WI $3211 Dear Dr. McAdams, In mid-January we both received the 123-page final report from the Marquette University Academic Senate Faculty Hearing Committee concerning your potential dismissal. Since that time, I have been carefully reviewing their report along with the transcriptions of your formal hearing last September. I am communicating with you today to inform you that after significant deliberation, I have decided to accept your fellow faculty members’ recommendation to suspend you without pay. Your suspension without pay will begin April 1, 2016, and continue through the Fall 2016 semester. In addition, your return to the faculty on January 17, 2017, for the Spring 2017 semester is conditioned upon you delivering a written statement to the President’s Office by April 4, 2016, the details of which are contained later in this letter. ‘There are a multitude of reasons as to why I am supporting the recommendation put forth by your peers to suspend ~ rather than dismiss ~ you from the faculty. Before getting to the rationale for this decision, I think it is important to state that the sanctions being brought against you are solely based on your ACTIONS as a tenured faculty member at Marquette University, and have nothing to do with the political or ideological views expressed in your blog. In fact, the university administration has a long track record of supporting your academic freedom and First Amendment rights. This point is reinforced and explicitly highlighted on page 120 of the Faculty Hearing Committee’s report, where they write: “We therefore interpret Section 307.0742 to bar the University from making pretextual uses of discretionary cause in order to punish protected speech sub rosa, But there is no evidence 10 suggest that the University is using this proceeding for such a purpose. Dr. McAdams has been blogging for ten years, posting 3,000 posts, and the University administration has never before sought to punish him for any of his blog posts. In fact, in at least six controversies involving Dr McAdams's Internet or campus speech that have arisen in twenty years, University administrators have gone out of their way to avoid formally reprimanding him. Nor is there anything in this proceeding that has suggested a lack of genuine concern about the Nov. 9 blog post or its effects on Ms, Abbate. There is no evidence that the charges levied against Dr. ‘McAdams are stalking-horse claims meant to silence his blogging more generally. We therefore conclude that the University is not using dismissal to restrain Dr. McAdams from exercising his academic freedom or other rights guaranteed him by the United States Constitution.”A, SUMMARY OF ACCEPTANCE OF FACULTY HEARING COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDATION ‘When considering my acceptance of the sanctions proposed by the Faculty Hearing Committee, it first should be noted that the Committee truly represents your peers. It is composed of seven faculty members from diverse disciplines and backgrounds across campus — the Klingler College of Arts & Sciences, the Diederich College of Communication, the School of Dentistry, the College of Education, the Opus College of Engineering and the Law School. Each of the faculty on the Committee were carefully chosen per the University Academic Senate process to provide a fair and unbiased hearing, It should secondly be recognized that the Faculty Hearing Committee took this matter extremely seriously. Starting with the simple, declarative sentence in their report, “This is a complex case” (p-4), your faculty peers set out to diligently examine all aspects of the situation placed before them.' They further define that complexity as examining a difficult balance between academic freedom and a faculty member’s responsibilities to others (p.67). They were incredibly thoughtful in their review of your actions and their consideration of the information presented during the four days of hearings in September 2015. The members of the Committee provided substantial service to the university through the countless hours they spent during deliberations and writing of the final report. In my opinion, the 123-page report that your peers submitted to us ‘was one of the most (if not rhe most) thorough and well-written documents from a faculty committee that I have read in my career. Finally, itis extremely significant that the Faculty Hearing Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommended a serious punishment of suspension for a period of one to two semesters (p.123). Getting a diverse group of faculty to unanimously agree on any topic can be difficult, so to have seven of your peers uniformly condemn and characterize your actions as egregious sends a strong message to my office and to the broader Marquette community. | found that the Faculty Hearing Committee’s written statements on pages 66-67, pages 74-75. and later on page 105 unequivocally summarize why you should be seriously reprimanded for your actions: ‘ While this issue is outside the scope of this letter, I also acknowledge the Committee’s disagreement with the fact that you were relieved from your teaching and service duties and for several weeks were asked not to come on campus. Your full pay and benefits in the meantime of ‘course were continued, in accord with the Faculty Statutes. Moreover, following the January 30, 2015, Notice of Dismissal, your lawyer was advised that, “[a]lthough Dr. McAdams does not have teaching or service duties, in the event he needs access to the materials in his office for “ongoing research and writing, we will provide him an office in the 707 Building, room 332B.” You elected not to use this office (even though the University offered to outfit it with anything needed from your department office) and instead chose to work from home using the Internet to access any needed materials. 2“The Committee unanimously concludes that Dr. McAdams’s actions surrounding the Nov. 9, 2014 blog post were imprudent, unprofessional, and unwise, In particular, Dr. McAdams clearly and substantially violated the norms of the scholarly profession by recklessly and unjustifiably, albeit indirectly, causing harm to his junior colleague, Ms. Abbate. Furthermore, he did so in ways that were justified by neither his freedom to search for truth nor his obligation to his student advisee. As explained below, the Committee finds that Dr. McAdams’s conduct was a serious instance of irresponsible conduct. ” (pp.66-67) “Dr. MeAdams’s conduct, however, goes beyond simply making factual errors in a blog post, or publicly naming a graduate student in the course of criticism, or linking to a page with her contact information, or publicly presenting a one-sided criticism of the teaching of a colleague. It goes beyond posting an extramural blog post that is uncivil, assuming his Nov. 9 blog post could fairly be characterized as uncivil in some way. Instead, Dr. McAdams used improperly obtained information in a way that he should have known could lead to harm, harm that could easily have been avoided. His use of a surreptitious recording, along with Ms. Abbate’s name and contact information, to hold Ms. Abbate up for public contempt on his blog, recklessly exposed her to the foreseeable harm that she suffered due to Dr. MeAdams's actions. Dr. McAdams’s irresponsible behavior in using the recording in this way fell far short of his obligations to Ms. Abbate as a professional colleague and as a fellow member of the Marquette community. We find that such seriously irresponsible conduct clearly and substantially fails to meet the standard of professional excellence that generally characterizes university faculties..." (pp.74-75) “Dr. MeAdams's repeated refusal to recognize or conform his conduct to such obligations as the obligation to take care to avoid harm to others indicates that, without corrective action, such conduct is likely to continue in the future. The record of this case therefore demonstrates that Dr. McAdams has engaged in a serious instance of irresponsible conduct, and that his conduct is likely to continue to significantly impair his fitness to meet his responsibilities as a university professor unless the University takes punitive action in this proceeding.” (p.105) “But the record belies the argument that the Nov. 9 blog post was an aberration, and makes clear that Dr. McAdams has, by his refusal to recognize his obligations to his profession, the university, his colleagues, or students, set himself on a course that was and continues to be likely to produce such incidents. That is why, unless action is taken here, his fitness will continue to be substantially impaired." (p. 105) B, DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF FACULTY HEARING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION It’s worth considering why your faculty peers would make such a strong recommendation to my office. Several portions of their report reveal significant insights into their reasoning. These insights are highlighted in the following sections and helped provide me the necessary background for making my final decision of a sanction of suspension.B1. Obligations of a Tenured Faculty Member ‘The Faculty Hearing Committee clearly outlined the obligations and expected behavior of a tenured faculty member at Marquette University. On page 75-77, the Committee outlines these expectations: “Among the obligations that professors have are obligations to other members of the academic community. Although professors are not properly bound by ordinary social norms of civility, they are not free from all restraint with respect to their colleagues. One of the more important obligations that professors have is to take care not to cause harm, directly or indirectly, to members of the university community.” (p.75) “While professors have no right to be free from criticism by their peers, they do have the right to expect that their colleagues will not be engaging in a search for unguarded private moments with which to humiliate them. Such conduct is ‘directly incompatible with the functioning of the University,’ and can be subject to discipline in a way mere criticism or incivility cannot. “These obligations take on special resonance at Marquette, which is a Jesuit university that has incorporated the concept of cura personalis—care for the whole person—into its foundational values. For example, the Marquette University Mission Statement provides that the Marquette community takes seriously ‘our responsibility ... 10 offer personal attention and care to each member of the Marquette community,’ defined as including ‘faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni and friends alike.’ One of Marquette's Guiding Values is a commitment to ‘[nJurture an inclusive, diverse community that fosters... . vigorous yet respectful debate. ’ Although many universities can no doubt point to similar principles on their websites, at Marquette these values have been woven into the fabric of the university community, which encourages each of its members to be a ‘person for others.’ (pp.76-77) B2. Negligence of Your Actions ‘Your peers openly demonstrate throughout their report that your actions went directly against norms of academic behavior and the mission and values of Marquette University. The Faculty Hearing Committee first highlights the carelessness of your actions. On page 84 they state: “The Committee finds that Dr. MeAdams’s blog post was reckless and seriously irresponsible in posing a significant, albeit indirect, risk of harm both to Ms. Abate and to the Marquette community.” ‘Then on page 86 they write: “Dr. McAdams did all this without considering the consequences to Ms. Abbate. His actions, if ‘not intentional, were certainly reckless in creating a risk of harm to Ms. Abbate. The harm risked was of two sorts: first, that Ms. Abate would suffer harm to her career from having been branded as intolerant in managing student discussion; and second, that Ms, Abbate would receive abusive communications in response to Dr. McAdams 's post.”“Ms. Abbate was essentially a casualty in that wider battle, one that Dr. McAdams does not appear to feel much regret over. Indeed, to this day, Dr. McAdams only grudgingly admits that there were consequences for Ms, Abbate, but he takes no responsibility for them. Dr. McAdams exacerbated the harm caused by continuing to post about Ms. Abate by name, without taking any steps to tamp down the furor he had initiated, in the ensuing months.” B3. Knowledge of Foreseeable Harm that was Easily Avoidable The Faculty Hearing Committee further recognized that it was foreseeable that your aetions in this situation would lead to harm to Ms. Abbate and that this harm was completely avoidable. On page 92 they state: “Dr. McAdams thus was not only aware that his blog could have negative consequences for those mentioned on it, he had relied on that fact in the past. The harm to Ms, Abate was foreseeable. The harm Dr. McAdams caused was easily avoidable, in any of several different ways. The most obvious step Dr. McAdams could have taken was to not use Ms. Abbate's name in the post. This would not have impacted the post at all, since there is no evidence that Ms. Abbate’s identity was at all important to the story, as opposed to the fact of her status as an instructor in the Philosophy Department.” B4, Unjustifiably Causing Significant Harm to a Member of the Campus Community It is the harm caused by your actions to our former graduate student/instructor, Ms. Abbate, that both the Committee and I find most unacceptable. By all accounts, Ms. Abbate was considered a star student: she already had six publications in reputable journals, her proposed dissertation topic had attracted two outside experts to serve on her committee (a first for Marquette’s Philosophy Department), and she was a likely nominee for our university’ highly regarded Rev. John P. Raynor, S.J. Fellowship. Quite simply, your peers point out that you unjustifiably put a member of our campus community, one with whom you had no previous interactions, directly in hharm’s way to push your personal views. ‘The Faculty Hearing Committee first highlights the selfish nature of your behavior on page 86: “The purpose of using Ms. Abbate’s exact words and attributing them to her by name appears to have been to strike a blow at the broader claimed phenomenon of liberal political correctness, and more particularly at the Philosophy Department, by attracting maximum publicity to sensational soundbites extracted from classroom or private conversation. Ms. Abate was essentially a casualty in that wider battle, one that Dr. McAdams does not appear to feel much regret over.” Your peers then demonstrate that this harm included several weeks of negative — sometimes hateful — emails and letters that severely interfered with Ms. Abbate’s teaching and her studies and eventually caused her to relocate to another university, revise her PhD thesis and repeat three semesters of classes at her new university. On pages 86 and 87 the Committee states:“The harm risked was of two sorts: frst, that Ms, Abbate would suffer harm to her career from having been branded as intolerant in managing student discussion; and second, that Ms. Abbate would receive abusive communications in response to Dr. MeAdams’s post. While it is to0 soon to say if the first danger has come to pass, the second was realized: Dr. MeAdams’s post, once it was picked up and had reverberated around the Internet and cable news channels, led to an online shaming campaign against Ms, Abate that eventually drove her from the university.” “Dr. MeAdams's conduct in this case produced substantial harm to Ms. Abbate. Within a few hours of the blog post, Ms. Abbate began receiving strongly negative emails from readers of Dr. McAdams's blog. But those communications went from occasional to overwhelming a week later as other sites picked up the story, linking back to Dr. MeAdams's Nov. 9 blog post. The number of emails and blog comments rose and grew increasingly violent.” Then, on pages 88 and 89, the Faculty Hearing Committee further expands on the substantial harm you caused to Ms, Abbate: “The volume of hostile and threatening communications made Abbate fear for her physical safety. One person was irate enough at Ms. Abbate that he emailed her four or five times over the following three weeks, even after the story had faded from the news, causing Abbate to fear that he might be a stalker. Based on concerns for Abbate’s physical safety and that of her students, a Public Safety officer was posted outside of Abbate’s classroom door at the beginning of her classes to ensure that the door was locked. Abbate also began suffering negative effects on her mental and physical health, One witness observed that Abate noticeably lost weight during this time, and appeared distressed. Another reported that Abbate was “in tears,” and "currently struggling to teach her classes and revise a dissertation proposal.” While Abbate initially attempted to present a brave front in forwarding the emails to Drs. South and Snow, making sarcastic comments, by Nov. 26 she told them, ‘I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. On December 2 she simply wrote, “Would they go away already!!!" “Abate, who was by all indications a star graduate student, was unable to focus on preparing her dissertation topic defense by the end of November 2014. Ultimately, although her topic had great promise, Abbate decided to abandon it entirely because of the negative association between that topic and the events of Fall 2014. In fact, concerned about her physical safety at Marquette, Abbate transferred to another university to complete her Ph.D. The transfer will require Abate (o repeat three semesters of course work. Although Dr. McAdams has suggested that Ms. Abbate was not harmed, and may have even improved her situation by transferring, the suggestion is exceptionable. ““As the AAUP has feared, Dr. MeAdams’s use of selective quotations from Ms. Abbate's classroom and after-class discussion has resulted in a chilling effect on Ms. Abbate—indeed she is no longer on the campus to speak at all.”yelling Your Role as a Journalist Since your initial Nov. 9, 2014, blog post, you have contended that your actions have been justified because you are a journalist. In several areas of their report, your faculty peers directly dispel this assertion. On page 94 they state: “Dr. McAdams has repeatedly argued that he was obliged to identify Ms. Abate because the norms of journalism require such identification. This would be a far stronger argument if Dr. McAdams were employed by Marquette as a journalist. But he is not; Dr. McAdams is a professor, and therefore his first loyalty must be to the obligations of the academic profession. To the extent those obligations conflict with obligations that a journalist would have, the Journalism norms must yield. In any event, Dr. McAdams seems to have only imperfectly adopted the norms of the journalistic profession, emphasizing the duty to identify subjects, but not the duties of verifying information, or of factual and contextual accuracy, or of identifying sources whenever possible, or of skepticism toward sources, or of diligently seeking rebuttal, or of avoiding subterfuge in gathering information, or of minimizing harm. Indeed, although it is irrelevant for our purposes here, it seems doubiful that Dr. MeAdams's posts have complied with the norms of journalism either.” Your peers also point out specific ways that you did not follow norms of journalism to ensure that information being reported was accurate. On pages 83-84 they conclude: “The first third of Dr. McAdams’s Nov. 9 blog post focused on Ms. Abbate's class and after-class discussion with JD. It began by quoting Ms. Abbate as telling her class, “airily,” that with respect to gay rights, “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.” Not only did Dr. McAdams have no basis for the quotation or for how it was delivered, but it is quite likely that the quotation was in error, and that Ms. Abbate was in fact referring to an application of Rawls's Equal Liberty Principle. Dr. McAdams then summarized and quoted several fragments ‘from the recording made by JD, interspersed with his own critical commentary. He concluded with the damaging, and false, implication that JD was dropping the class because Ms. Abbate had “invited” him to, when in fact the drop form Dr. McAdams signed, as well as JD himself, stated that JD was dropping due to his " [cJurrent grade standing,” and there is no evidence that JD ever stated otherwise.” Likewise, on page 85 your peers demonstrate that your Nov. 9 post was inaccurate: “Dr. McAdams also clearly implied that Ms. Abbate had quite outrageously forced JD to drop the class based on their disagreement, without any basis for making that assertion and indeed apparently contrary to fact. “Dr. McAdams hurried to post these assertions based on incomplete or ambiguous evidence without making any attempt, beyond a single unanswered email to Ms. Abbate, to confirm them....Dr. MeAdams did not simply make erroneous or misleading assertions about what Ms. Abbate said on October 28; he made those assertions with no hint of any doubt.”BG, Misuse of Secret Recording Furthermore, the Committee believes that providing the undergraduate student’s recording to external media outlets is among your most harmful actions as a faculty member. The full report of the Committee references the American Association of University Professors’ concern in this area on page 77: “The use of secret recordings of interactions between faculty and students is something that the AAUP has been particularly concerned about for the past thirty years, and with good reason. While published articles and public speeches require a speaker to carefully prepare what he or she will say, the give-and-take of a classroom or post-class discussion often does not allow for carefully crafied and properly qualified statements of one’s beliefs. On the contrary, excerpts from a vibrant debate, taken out of context, might instead provide ‘gotcha’ moments to be used ‘for partisan advantage. If such excerpting becomes prevalent, faculty members and students ‘would have little choice but to limit their discussions for fear of being willfully misinterpreted and held up to public ridicule or derision.” Beyond the AAUP’s concerns for the misuse of secret recordings, the Faculty Hearing Committee rightly points out on page 80 the additional harm such a recording can bring to Marquette’s efforts to build trust among campus community member “The danger is even more pronounced for Marquette, as the practice of cura personalis also requires ‘an atmosphere of mutual trust—a trust which is always difficult to win, always easy 10 lose.” C. CONDITIONS FOR YOUR RETURN TO THE FACULTY A university president must be focused on ensuring and enhancing the institution’s core values. ‘At Marquette, we describe these values in our Mission Statement and Vision Statement, which have been in place for many years. Since my arrival, we have reinforced the expression of these values in our Statement of Guiding Values. The Faculty Hearing Committee specifically considered three of the values in its deliberations: © Pledge personal and holistic development of students as our primary institutional vocation, Pursue academic excellence and educate students who are men and women for and with others throughout the world. © Nurture an inclusive, diverse community that fosters new opportunities, partnerships, collaboration and vigorous yet respectful debate. All of these values are the foundation of our university. There are many reasons to believe, however, that you do not fully embrace these university values. This is a major cause for concern when considering your return to the faculty. Throughout the Faculty Hearing Committee's report, there is evidence that you are unwilling to recognize and follow obligations inherent in the academic profession in general and at Marquette in particular. The Committee members offer these illustrations on pages 103 and 104:“The record before us clearly demonstrates that Dr. McAdams does not view himself as bound by the fundamental norms of the university, or of the acadlemic profession, or indeed by any consistently applicable body of norms. He has instead assembled his own moral code cobbled together from various sources, to be applied as he sees fit. Dr. McAdams has emphasized repeatedly, both before the Committee and on his blog, that he views his blogging as bound by only two sources of obligations: journalistic norms, as he understands them; and the law. Even his adoption of journalistic norms is selective; he believes he is obligated to name subjects and 10 shield sources, but not to confirm facts, seek rebuttals, include context, be stingy with anonymity, avoid misleading claims, or publish corrections. “Dr. MeAdams recognizes only those constraints arising from his role as a member of the faculty that he chooses to. He states that he would never seek to expose the failings of students in his classes or colleagues within his own department, but he does not extend the same courtesy to colleagues or students elsewhere within the university. Dr. McAdams exploits rather than seeks to minimize the intimidation caused by his blog. In addition, both the Faculty Hearing Committee and I have concerns that you do not show regret for your actions. In fact, the Committee’s report not only highlights that you knew the harm your actions would cause, but that you have no remorse for that harm. They write on page 86: “Ms. Abbate was essentially a casualty in that wider battle, one that Dr. McAdams does not appear to feel much regret over. Indeed, to this day, Dr. McAdams only grudgingly admits that there were consequences for Ms. Abbate, but he takes no responsibility for them.” This creates an important question: What are your intentions for the future? Thave found guidance for how to address the question in the faculty report’s analysis of a faculty member's value or fitness for his or her position. What I find especially compelling about this analysis, starting on page 101, is that it recognizes the forward-looking aspect of a tenure decision, When tenure is first granted to professors, it is not just a prize for past accomplishments. Tenure and academic freedom exist to serve goals well beyond the personal interests of those who enjoy their benefits. Rather, the university grants tenure based upon the considered prediction that going forward a professor will make use of tenure’s security in a way that will advance both the university’s and profession’s mission, So, too, when considering revocation of tenure, the Faculty Hearing Committee on page 103 recognized that, "(fJitness appears to be a forward-looking concept; the question is whether the ‘faculty member's conduct will affect their ability, or shed light on their willingness, to perform their professional obligations in the future.” The Committee understood the word “fitness” as follows: “to encompass all of a faculty member’s responsibilities, ‘broadly conceived,’ including obligations fo one’s students, to one’s colleagues, to one's discipline, or to the functions of one’s institution.” Viewed from this forward-looking perspective, the Committee’s report raises significant doubts about your future willingness to perform your professional obligations. “That is why,” the Committee states, “unless action is taken here, his fitness will continue to be substantially impaired.”As I wrote at the beginning of this letter, you are suspended without pay beginning April 1, 2016, and continuing through the Fall 2016 semester until January 17, 2017. The university contributions to your medical, dental, vision, basic life and long-term disability insurance benefits to which you are currently subscribed will be continued at the same level as if you were active. As a result of your unpaid status you will not be eligible to participate in the TIAA-CREF matching retirement plan, You may continue to participate in the flexible spending account benefit program. Our Department of Human Resources will send you information on the specific billing arrangements for payment of the flexible spending account, medical, dental, vision, optional life and long-term disability insurance employee contributions following your fulfillment of the conditions that follow. Your return to the faculty on January 17, 2017, for the Spring 2017 semester is conditioned on you delivering a written statement to me by April 4, 2016. I am requiring this written statement because of the concern expressed by the Faculty Hearing Committee about your fitness to resume your duties as a member of the Marquette University faculty and the lack of remorse you have shown for the harm you have caused. I am also requiring the statement because T want you to demonstrate to me your clear willingness to change your behavior and be a constructive, contributing member of the faculty. Your written statement, which will be shared confidentially with Ms. Abate, must contain these three elements: * Your acknowledgement and acceptance of the unanimous judgment of the peers who served on the Faculty Hearing Committee. + Your affirmation and commitment that your future actions and behavior will adhere to the standards of higher education as defined in the Marquette University Faculty Handbook, Mission Statement and Guiding Values. * Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate. ‘As members of the Marquette campus community, we all have the responsibility of ensuring the success of our students in every aspect of their lives. I am fulfilling my responsibility as Marquette University President by acting on the recommendations of the Faculty Hearing Committee and giving you this outline of the conditions of your future employment at Marquette University. Finally, like your peers on the Faculty Hearing Committee, I hope that this is the last time that these procedures will need to be invoked for you. I want to be clear, however, that if another incident occurs I will be in full agreement with the stern statements made by your peers on pages 106 and 107 of their report: “The Committee hopes that a suspension, if one is imposed, will mark the last time that these procedures need 10 be invoked for Dr. McAdams, But if not, this report and the suspension imposed put Dr. McAdams on clear notice of the seriousness with which the Marquette community, including his faculty peers, take the essential obligations that university professors have toward other members of the Marquette community. That includes the obligation not to cause harm, directly or indirectly, to students or colleagues; and the obligation to be clear about 10the role in which he contacts Marquette faculty or students to gather information for his extramural activities. Should another incident occur in which Dr. McAdams’s conduct directly or indirectly causes a student or faculty member substantial and foreseeable harm in a manner that is easily avoidable and not justified, then the mitigating factors that have determined our recommendation in this case will no longer exist, and Dr. MeAdams should know that he will be facing dismissal.” I look forward to your response. Best, Li Std Michel R. Lovell President Marquette University ML