Summary: 1832
The purpose of this blog is to report issues that involve the campuses of Marquette and Indiana University and to comment on local, state, and national news. While this blog celebrates Andrew Jackson's founding of the Democratic party, 1832 will criticize the Democratic Party and will offer guest blogger invites to Republicans and Independents as warranted to further intellectual development and discourse.
Having just read Professor McAdams' post about the upcoming
execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, I felt the obligation to
defend what he describes as the "attachment that liberal
activists and Hollywood airheads have for [Mr. Williams]."
While I found the Boston Globe article he referenced
interesting, (and indeed, disturbing by the details of violence
in them), I felt that it was extremely one-sided, and did not
take into account the positive things that Mr. Williams has done
since his incarceration in 1981. This man has been on death row
for 24 years. He has been in prison longer than I have been
alive. In the time that Mr. Williams has been imprisoned,
he has denounced his gang ties, and has worked to
end gang violence.
I am not advocating that Mr. Williams is innocent of these
crimes. What I am advocating is that he should be granted
clemency. This would mean that he would be spared from the death
penalty, but he would remain in prison for the rest of his life.
Professor McAdams writes that "Death penalty opponents claim that
executing murderers somehow sends the message that killing is
alright, since the state is killing. This sort of logic says that
sending an army to invade Germany in World War II sent a message
that invasions are alright. Of course, it sent exactly the
opposite message."
I disagree. I don't think that death penalty opponents think that
by using capital punishment, we send the message that killing is
ok. It is for several reasons that I will outline that I believe
capital punishment is wrong. These reasons are not a complete
list, but merely touch on examples that I have encountered in my
research.
As a death penalty opponent I have done extensive research and
talked with several attorneys who have handled cases where
capital punishment was at stake. Most of these people who work to
ensure the justice of this country do not believe that the death
penalty significantly deters criminals from committing a crime.
Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School testified before the New York State assembly with
very compelling evidence that capital punishment has not been
proven to deter crime.
There are other options besides death; a punishment of life
without parole is just as a deterrant for crime as capital
punishment. Studies have repeatedly shown that a life
imprisonment is also less costly than using the death penalty
because of the huge costs of appeals. For these reasons, I do not
believe capital punishment ought to be administered.
I also believe that employing the use of capital punishment has
moral implications. Professor McAdams says that "executing
murderers sends exactly the right message about the value of
human life." What message is this? Yes, we should recognize that
there are victims of those who are currently on death row. Yes,
their lives were valuable and yes, there ought to be a punishment
for the crimes against them, but aren't the lives of those on
death row also valuable? Stanley Tookie Williams has worked
diligently to bring peace to America's gang ridden inner cities.
Yes, he allegedly killed several people, but his life still has
value, even in prison. By murdering these people (yes, murder is
the cause of death when someone is killed through capital
punishment. it is quite ironic) we send a vengeful message about
the value of human life. Can someone explain to me how we value
human life by killing? Yes, I understand that by executing
someone it acts as a retribution for killing someone else, but
that doesn't end the pain for a family who lost a loved one. The
only message sent through executions is that this nation only
values certain lives--the lives of those who are victims.
Everyone has done something wrong in their lives, some more than
others. We mere and fallible humans cannot reasonably make the
determination of whose lives are valuable and whose are not. To
me, every life is sacred. Every life has value. Criminals should
be in prison, but they should be allowed to live and to
contribute to society, even from behind bars.
I don't disagree that there are evil people in this world and
that we must have a system in place to ensure the protection of
citizens, but capital punishment does little to protect people.
It does not detract from crime, it is costly, and to say that
executions show that we value human life is the most oxymoronic
thing I have heard in a long time. We must have a system of
justice where criminals are prosecuted, but to kill someone to
say that killing is wrong does not value life whatsoever.
Date Published: Dec 10, 2005 - 9:15 pm
The following
petition was submitted to University officials and The Marquette Tribune yesterday with
297 signatures:
Freedom of expression and the exchange of
ideas are essential in an academic setting and should be encouraged
rather than punished. The signers of the petition demand that the
student who was suspended for expressing his personal beliefs
online in a form of a personal blog be fully reinstated to the
University and that all disciplinary actions taken against him be
overturned. Specifically, the signers of petition believe that the
decision by the Marquette University Faculty/Student Conduct Board
should be overturned on the following grounds:
Whereas: The Dental School Faculty/Student Conduct Board denied the
student a fair hearing
Whereas: The University grossly infringed on his right to freedom
of speech by using statements made to a close group of friends on
his personal blog against him
Whereas: The punishment
was overly excessive and can be shown to be more than arbitrary and
capricious
Whereas: The decision, If upheld, would set a disastrous precedent
for student free speech rights and would give the University a
seemingly limitless reach into students lives.
This petition is officially sponsored and endorsed
by:
Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College Republicans, 1832,
The Warrior Blog, Leaning Blue, Brewtown Politico, GOP3.com, Adam
Chernow's Blog, The Office of Homeland Security and Eminent
Domain.
Thank you to all of you that took the time to sign it.
Date Published: Dec 10, 2005 - 3:44 pm
I don't know what I was thinking when I had hope that MUSG would
actually do something positive for their fellow students on campus.
This is the MUSG after all that is led by
Alex Hermanny who actually "thanked the
administration" for the input it took from students in the "GOLD"
annoucement.
Resolution 1: "On Behalf of Student Expression", which was passed,
contained the following statement:
"Whereas: It is recognized that Marquette University, in
accordance with its Jesuit values and ideals and in compliance
with its Policies and procedures, reserves the right to monitor
and censor expression both on and off Marquette's campus"
Um hello MUSG!?!?! When did censorship become an ideal " in
accordance with Jesuit values"? So thats where the Dental School
got the suspension idea from--the Jesuits! (Im clearly joking, I
assume this was just poor wording that none of them caught).
MUSG passed the resolution despite the fact that I stated in the
public comments section, that including such a statement makes the
rest of the resolution null and void, much like the War Powers Act
fails to limit Presidential War Powers because the Congress
conceded that the President has the right to insert troops into
combat without the consent of the Congress.
During the debate, Alex Hermanny and Brock Banks stated that
(
from the
GOP3.com live blog):
SENATOR BANKS: Talked with Dean McCarthy. Their view is that when
you commit yourself to MU student, you sign onto a contract with
a policy and student conduct code, and that they have the right
to censor student expression whenever they want since when we're
on campus we're theirs and when we're off-campus we're a
representative of the University. Still, just because they can
censor us doesn't mean they should. Brock points out the
negative effects that can occur when the University does exercise
their right. MUSG wants the University to be prudent in its
decisions to curb student expression, given our goal to make the
University an open forum for the free exchange of ideas.
DANIEL: Alex mentioned that he talked with Fr. Andy, and Fr. Thon
[sic] said that he felt part of this issue was the higher
standard of conduct expected from professional school
students.
Jeez guys you talked to Dr. McCarthy the Dean of OSD,
which is the Department that is the main oppessor of
speech on and off campus, and Fr. Andy Thon who both agree that
Marquette has an absolute right to "monitor and censor speech on
and off campus". They clearly wouldn't have a vested interest in
claiming such a right even if its doesn't legally exist.
Did any members of MUSG speak with a lawyer or Professor from the
law school to verify this? Nope. Apparently none of the MUSG
Senators even bothered to readl this
Marquette
Tribune staff editorial that stated:
The
expelled student could argue that the university rule in question
was not clear enough with regards to off-campus speech. He could
also argue that Marquette received money from the government for
the dental school building, and in that way is a government
actor, broadening the student's right to free speech, according
to Erik Ugland, a professor of media law at Marquette. Ugland
said in an e-mail interview that he hoped the university would
rescind its suspension.
I'm going to write a lot more later this weekend about
everything that is wrong with this resolution because I have a lot
of work to do tonight.
However, I will say this, unless MUSG is willing to put up a
tougher fight with the Admin, I have zero faith in MUSG's pledge to
pass a real "students bill of rights" next semester that actually
protects students.
Date Published: Dec 08, 2005 - 8:06 pm
According to a friend of mine who is close to MUSG, the Student
Life Committee has approved a resolution that condemns the Dental
School's decision to suspend a student over the contents of his
blog and that a "student bill of rights" is also on the table.
The Student Senate will vote on the resolution and discuss a
possible "student bill of rights" tonight at 7:30pm in AMU room
227.
A "student bill of rights" or MUSG resolutions that further protect
students right to free speech on and off campus is something that I
have long advocated for. I just find it sad that an event such as
this, is what forced to the table.
Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College Republicans,
The Warrior Blog, GOP3.com, 1832 and even my old
Students for Dean group have long warned that Marquette student's
freedom of expression has been under attack by the
administration--the time for change is now.
Date Published: Dec 08, 2005 - 1:55 am
My stomach turned when I read that Jason Strickland, a 31 year
old auto mechanic, was appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court to keep his stepdaughter alive. Haliegh Strickland has
been comatose, and on life support since September.
The man trying to keep her alive is allegedly the reason she is
in the hospital barely clinging to life. Police charged
Strickland with beating Haliegh. Those charges will be upgraded
to murder if Haliegh is taken off of life support.
It makes me so sick. Strickland never officially adopted Haliegh,
but because he lived with her for four years and took on a
fatherly role, he should be viewed as her de facto parent. Thus,
he believes he should have the right to decide when she is taken
off of life support. What gets me is that she wouldn’t need the
life support had he acted like a parent ought to act. He should
have been loving, and caring, and protective of this girl that
now, when his own life is at stake, views as his daughter. This
is so incredibly selfish. He only wants to protect himself. I am
glad that his case has little legal merit in that he never
officially adopted Haliegh, and therefore will probably not win
his appeal.
Date Published: Dec 06, 2005 - 7:26 pm
So far 52 people have signed our petition demanding that all of the
disciplinary actions taken against Marquette Dental Student
Theodore Schrubbe be overturned, but given
all the traffic that is coming into 1832 right now, we really
should have more. If you haven't signed the petition yet, please take the
time to do so.
In addition, the petition has now been endorsed by the following
groups/blogs: Marquette College Democrats, Marquette College
Republicans, 1832,
The Warrior Blog, Leaning Blue,
Brewtown Politico, GOP3.com, Adam Chernow's Blog, The Office of Homeland
Security and now
Eminent
Domain.
In related news, Slashdot.com has picked up the
story:
whiteSanjuro writes "Reported first by the bloggers, and now the mainstream press, is a story of a student
being suspended by his university for the rest of the academic
year because of entries in the student's blog which the
university did not view favorably. It has already had some
chilling effects and looks like it will be
setting a standard that students at private universities aren't
guaranteed free speech online. The student (who wishes to remain
anonymous) is appealing the university's decision in an effort to
remain in classes and finish out the current semester, but even
the terms of re-admittance (pdf) leave the blogger
subject to probation, minus a scholarship, and prohibit future
free blogging. Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the
EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog."
In addition to our petition,
please join the
EFF as well.
Date Published: Dec 06, 2005 - 7:10 pm
The loss of American white-collar jobs to India, China and other
locales through the practice of outsourcing has become one of the
hot-button issues in politics today. But perhaps just as
controversial, if not more so, than the application of outsourcing
is offshoring, defined by reporter and author Thomas Friedman as
“when a company takes one of its factories that is operating in
Canton, Ohio and moves the whole factory offshore to Canton, China
(where) it produces the same product in the very same way, only
with cheaper labor, lower taxes, subsidized energy, and lower
health care costs." Offshoring has gained a great deal of negative
attention in recent media coverage, as the press laments the loss
of American blue-collar positions, disappearance of tax revenue
from production, and alleged human rights violations in these
foreign factories. However, it appears at times as though both
sides of the story of offshoring are not being told by America’s
mainstream media and many politicians.
Some local representatives have been eager to act on the resentment
of offshoring labor shown by their constituents. California
lawmakers recently
introduced a bill that would have prohibited
agencies in their state from offshoring labor unless the contractor
could prove that all of the work would be done inside the United
States by American workers. Although the proposed regulation was
eventually vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it only seems
as if protectionist sentiments in this country are becoming more
and more prevalent.
Infoworld reports that “bills related to
offshoring or outsourcing, some of which would severely limit or
outright stop those practices, were introduced this year in nearly
all 50 states as well as in the U.S. Congress, and there is no
indication that legislative trend will stop."
Despite the good intentions of elected officials across the
country, the fact remains that companies which choose to offshore
production are effectively employing the law of comparative
advantage, and choosing real goals such as efficiency and price
over intangible variables like their perception by potential
consumers. Unfortunately for companies that do choose to outsource,
this image is often altered by those that seek to keep American
jobs inside our borders at any cost. Offshoring labor can actually
create positions here in the United States, as shown by
Murray Weidenbaum, who chronicled the results of
Delta Air Lines’ experiment. He writes that “in 2003, Delta
outsourced 1,000 jobs to India, but the $25 million in savings
allowed the company to add 1,200 reservation and sales positions in
the United States." Of course, positive stories about offshoring
such as this, which saw our country gain 1,200 higher-paying
positions at the expense of 1,000 blue-collar placements, are
largely hidden as the “offshoring is bad” contingent of the media
tends to dominate discussion.
Perhaps most of all, protectionist politicians and jingoistic
journalists are guilty of claiming that in regards to offshoring,
the sky is falling, when that really is not the case. After all,
America still is the world’s largest manufacturer, and per
Friedman, we still produce 75% of what we consume. All of our jobs
are not moving across the Pacific. In fact, some high-paying jobs
are moving in the opposite direction, as foreign car companies have
found it advantageous to set up production facilities right here in
the United States. Honda now has a plant in Ohio, Nissan currently
manufactures vehicles in Mississippi, and Toyota operates
production lines in California, just to name a few. In addition,
technological firms across the world often move operations to the
United States to take advantage of our culture of innovation and
highly educated population. Offshoring does go both ways.
People need to realize this simple actuality in the new global
economy – due to globalization, offshoring is here to stay, despite
legislation, rallies or other movements against it. But it does not
have to be a threat. The offshoring of global positions presents
thousands of new opportunities just waiting to be leveraged. It
frees up workers in America to manage, rather than work with their
hands, and to deal with information instead of raw materials. And
while it is an enormous transformation, it can inevitably work out
for the best, for both employers and employees.
Date Published: Dec 06, 2005 - 4:51 pm
Editors Note: The following was
originally posted in the comments section of this post on this suspension
scandal at Marquette and while we disagree with it a lot of it
(but not all of it), 1832 also fully supports and believes in the
freedom of expression and encourages the free exchange of ideas.
Thus we have elevated these comments to "guest blog" status as it
is a well written counterpoint:
I’m a
Marquette grad, and I emailed Professor McAdams yesterday with a
few two cent opinions on this whole mess.
I read the Marquette Tribune pretty often on line and also the new
student paper, as well as Dr. McAdams blog and this one.
For whatever it’s worth, as a life long conservative on most every
issue, I have a quickie take on this biz.
My sense of the atmosphere at Marquette these days is that there
seems to be an acrimonious relationship between liberal and
conservative factions, student and faculty alike. Whatever happened
to the days when people could disagree with eachother without
having to fear someone coming by their house and shooting their
windows at at 3am?
First, unfortunately the Dental student’s blog is off line now,
apparently, so no one can read the whole thing and draw a
thoroughly reasoned conclusion.
But based on Dr. McAdam’s post yesterday, it seems the University’s
decision to discipline this student rests on his use of one
particular word (a bad toilet word he used in reference to a
professor — whose identity obviously could be inferred by readers,
though the professor is unnamed).
Second, I don’t think it’s fair to say Marquette censored anyone,
unless they forced this guy to take his blog down. It seems he did
it on his own after he got nailed for calling someone a bad name.
The student seemd to cave in when forced with an embarrassing
disciplinary mess. He seemed to reject their feeling he needed
counseling, and so took the blog down as an afterthought.
It seems the posts here (on this site regarding free speech) are
predicated on a juvenile at best notion of what constitutes “free
speech.” Of course no one suggests shouting “Fire in a theater”
should be protected. But there are many other levels and grades of
things that merit argument. This is one of them.
It’s interesting that another blogger here accuses the Dean of
reacting like a three year old — but what’s more childish than
calling someone a bad name and then crying foul when there are
consequences?
I’m not taking Marquette’s side in this. Not by a long shot. But
one has to recognize the climate of our culture.
As I wrote to Dr McAdams, 16 years ago today an engineering student
at the University of Montreal shot 14 female students to death in a
classroom.
No one is saying this dental student is deranged, but universities,
corporations, airports, malls, and so forth are all taking things
that smell of potential whacked out behavior much more seriously
today than they ever did before.
Maybe a hundred years from now, or more, when people stop walking
through shopping malls with assualt rifles, killing their
girlfriends’ parents over curfew, and going to churches and
kindergartens with deer rifles, then you can safely say that people
who post blogs in a moment of anger are just “blowing off steam,”
as Dr McAdams says this guy is doing. But today, corporations, law
enforcement, schools, etc, are paying attention to “fighting
words,” which is the real name for this student’s language.
By the way, read Chaplinsky v the State of New Hampshire in this
regard. It’s the Supreme Court case that helped shape legal
definitions of “protected speech.”
Also, it’s possible there’s more to the dental student’s story than
the blogs and media are reporting. If he put those words in his
blog, it’s likely he shot his mouth off in the dental school. News
travels fast. Perhaps he has a reputation.
Plato wryly points out that the purpose of punishment is
pedagogical.
What’s done is done and punishment can’t change the past. However,
punishment teaches perpetrators and everyone else what happens if
someone transgresses a law.
Dr. McAdams may know this student personally, and can vouch for his
character. I don’t know. But go talk to people in Columbine about
how they feel about students who use blogs to blow off steam. Then
come back and look at this case again.
This just is bad timing on the student’s part, and quite obviously
the left leaning administration has seized this opportunity to make
an example of him.
Moreover, the student said what he had to say, and Marquette
exercised its right to decide who gets to be on campus and who
doesn’t. (There’s an Italian saying: Choose your friends for their
looks and you enemies for their brains. I wonder how this fits the
present circumstance.)
As I said to Dr McAdams, and I don’t think he agrees with me,
student criticism of a professor might go something like this:
“Is unprepared for class.”
“Returns assignments late and with few useful comments.”
“Does not hold office hours regularly and is not available.”
These are critiques.
Name calling like that is hate rhetoric. It’s not “a free discourse
of ideas” to tear people down. Anyone who thinks that calling
someone a “c—kmaster” is sharing an idea isn’t worth arguing
with.
What would liberal and conservatives alike think of a Marquette
faculty or graduate teaching assistant, who, in a blog, referred to
a student as a “c–k-anything,” who everyone could identify
contextually? Further, what if the professor or TA said that 20% of
his students weren’t college material?
Would we all be rushing to defend their right to “free” speech?
Would every one agree such a person deserves to be on the faculty
of a major university?
Ultimately, there can’t or shouldn’t be two sets of standards for
people in an academic community.
Either there’s scholarly decorum or there isn’t.
It’s not like the guy worked on a loading dock and called his
foreman a “c—k master.” He’s a graduate student and if he can’t
sound like one then there’s something out of joint.
And you can say on the one hand that a professor is a c–kmaster,
and then run and hide and expect people to cut you slack and say
it’s ok, you were only “blowing off steam.”
When you call a professor a bad word like a disgruntled 4th grader
on a public school playground, people have a right to react to this
type of behavior (and yes, language is a type of behavior that is
actionable, if you don’t believe me, then try cussing up a storm in
a major corporation, on a city bus, or better yet walk up to a cop
and tell him he’s a “c—k master”).
What got this young man in hot water isn’t that he was critical of
Marquette, rather, what came back to bite him in the ass is that he
expressed himself like someone on Jerry Springer or Maury.
He exercised his right to talk like a low life, and Marquette
exercised its right to ask him if he really wants to be there.
Regardless of how “equal” we all are politically and socially, if
the only way you can evaluate another person is to use toilet
words, you’re not equal intellectually to anyone.
Doesn’t sound like this guy is particularly happy there. And since
I am not at Marquette, I can’t guess what it’s like to be a grad
student there anymore.
So what entitles him to the degree he’s working on? It certainly
isn’t his detached intellect or his capacity to think abstractly or
philosophically.
It wasn’t so long ago when there was a distinction between public
and private discourse. Remember when Nixon had to turn over
particular Oval Office recordings of his private meetings? The
public was then shocked that the President of the US and his staff
cussed like truck drivers and even used racial and ethnic
slurs.
But in public, one was expected to express important ideas with
appropriate language.
Apparently Marquette thinks so too. They have a right to apply
standards of decorum as they see fit.
This guy seemed to use his blog like it was a bathroom wall to
write on. The only problem is that on a blog, he invited the world
in to read it.
Today, standards regarding language have lowered. We all know it.
Everyone uses bad words.
But some people have a right not have to accept people who fob
themselves off as intellectuals superiors when all they can do is
talk like a low life.
Just listen to kids waiting for the bus at a bus stop in any city,
or listen closely to people on the el or a bus.
But this Dental student isn’t a guest on Jerry Springer or a foul
mouthed brat on a playground.
He’s a doctoral student at a major university who expresses himself
like a disgruntled potential Unabomber.
And if anyone thinks that if this guy went to Northwestern or Yale
and referred to the faculty who graciously gave him an academic
scholarship as “c–k masters” that they wouldn’t “do” anything, then
they need to think again.
As I said, there are still people out in the world who realize that
when you’re sitting in a bar pouring out your heart to your best
friend that you’re going to use words that might even make Nixon
blush.
But when you post things on blogs, you’re entering the public
domain where you’re implicitly inviting an analysis of your
ideas.
There are people in the world who still think that there are more
and less responsible ways to express what’s in your head.
For a guy who expects Marquette to give him DDS and PhD degrees, he
doesn’t sound too prudent. And maybe he was having a bad day. But
so were the kids at Columbine and right or wrong, the world is
trying to understand who people go postal.
Again. I am not suggesting this student sounds like he would, but
there are a number of people who have crossed the line from violent
language to violent actions.
(Also, one can’t escape the anger seething beneath the surface of
his remarks. I wonder why no one has asked if they’d want someone
that angry to be working inside their mouths with sharp objects and
drills?)
Maybe he can spend his suspension period watching Jerry Springer
and then he’ll realize what he sounds like and that if he expects
anyone to take to him seriously, he’ll stop talking like he drives
a fork lift at WalMart and lives in a trailor.
Last, if he’s that unhappy at Marquette and if 20 percent of his
fellow students are so beneath him, why doesn’t he have the grades
and scores to go to a better school?
He’s only 22. When he gets out in the work world — be it a hospital
or someother entity, the response to that type of rant will be
“Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”
When the student went public to his blog, he had a compulsion to be
read, and Freud is up there smiling somewhere, because he obviously
had a compulsion to get caught and disciplined for his potty mouth
— there are no accidents.
There’s that old saying about choosing one’s battles and
doing it wisely, apparently he didn’t think of the
consequences.
Date Published: Dec 06, 2005 - 4:47 pm
In the midst of a war that has already been riddled with alleged
human rights abuses, last month Vice President Cheney called upon
Congress to legalize torture in the interrogation and detention
of terror suspects.
In the past week Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former Chief of
Staff was asked if he believed that Cheney was guilty of war
crimes by advocating the use of torture. Wilkerson responded
“It was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I
would suspect that it is--for whatever it's worth--an
international crime as well.”
Wilkerson has been incredibly outspoken about
the role that Cheney played in the prisoner abuse. In a separate
interview he said, "There's no question in my mind where
the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to [abuse
detainees] originated -- in the vice president of the United
States' office.”
We cannot advocate the use of torture while attempting to
prosecute individuals like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic
for crimes against humanity. This is incredible hypocrisy. Yes,
these people are our enemies, yes, some of them have carried out
atrocious violence, yes, they may be difficult to interrogate,
but so are our own military who they are fighting against. Using
torture on detainees is no better than their torture of American
soldiers. We must not stoop to their level.
Some of you may disagree with me. You may say that in times of
war, we must use all means necessary to win. My response to that
is simply this: if we torture detainees, we only add to the hate
that they and their fellow insurgents have for us. The little we
may gain through the use of torture would not justify the
increase of hatred that would prevail.
Date Published: Dec 06, 2005 - 12:16 pm
Dr. McAdams' Blog is reporting that a Marquette
Dental Student has been suspended over his personal blog posts
that were apparently critical of a Dental School professor, of his
second-year dental school class and over a few posts that detailed
a few nights of drinking. (The site has since been taken down)
So this either means my letter of dismissal either got lost in the
mail or is on its way.....
According to Dr. McAdams, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Denis
Lynch:
"wrote the student a letter (dated November 2, 2005) accusing him
of "crude, demeaning and unprofessional remarks"” that "“violate
standards of acceptable behavior as described in the Standards of
Conduct, published in At Marquette (2005-2006, pages 209-211), as
well as the School of Dentistry's Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct. . . .
Lynch then went on and claimed that the student had violated
Section IV, Subsection E of the Marquette Dental School Code. He
offered the student the option of signing "“an admission of
guilt" and accepting a punishment that included probation for the
rest of the student'’s Marquette career, making a public apology
to his dental school class, and making an appointment with the
Director of the Marquette University Counseling Center "“to
assess both your alcohol abuse and the underlying basis of your
remarks posted on your blog site."
The entire letter from Marquette can be found
here.
So beware to Marquette Students who are on facebook, post messages
on message boards, have a blog or an online journal, you too could
be next! So we all better go and delete our membership to facebook
groups or any entries of any kind that are critical of Marquette in
general and/or Marquette Professors and/or other Marquette
Students. Oh and I guess this means I better remove the picture of
me doing a beer bong too!
(I'm actually serious about the above items. If this decision is
allowed to stand, the University's power to take action against you
for anything you say online is seemingly limitless)
From now on all blog entries on 1832 will begin by proclaiming,
"Thank you God,for giving me the privilege of attending a
University with a student body, and a faculty and staff, that are
all worthy of Sainthood...."
Our first entry will be: "Pam Peters, "Marquette's own Dorothy
Day?" Which will then be followed by: "Joseph Kastner, "Most Likely
Marquette Student To End Racism and Bring Peace to the Middle
East?" we then reveal: "
The
Warrior: A Publication Written By the Divinely Inspired" but
our post of the year will surely be: "Late Night Marquette: What
were we thinking before?!?! LATE NIGHT RULES!"
In case you want to thank Associate Dean Denis Lynch personally,
you may contact him at:
denis.lynch@marquette.edu
Phone:
414-288-7485
Click here to view his webpage
Date Published: Dec 04, 2005 - 9:15 pm
Nick Zettel, a Senior at Marquette University, and the most
well-read and insightful undergraduate philosopher that I have met
at Marquette has
started a blog that seems to cover current political
events and baseball from a philosophical perspective.
He already has some great stuff on there about the Brewers, and Dr.
McAdam's favorite,
bias in the Academy.
I have a feeling that Nick is going to become an integral part of
the intellectual side of the Marquette University blogosphere and I
encourage everyone to check out what he has to
say. The
actual address is
http://radiosilence97.blogspot.com .
I'm sure we'll add a link to our blog role soon.
(Orginally Posted by Zach Corey)
Date Published: Dec 04, 2005 - 6:50 pm
Wow today has been a busy day.... Today
Mr. Suhr at
GOP3.com made this false claim about the Marquette College
Democrats T-Shirts:
The College Democrats at Marquette University website,
www.MUDemocrats.com, recently came back
online. Among its very few and pathetic features are the
meeting minutes for their gatherings:
September 6: T-Shirts: T-Shirts have not yet
been ordered, although 5 designs have been approved by OSD.
The estimated price is $10, and a signup sheet went around
for those interested. The approved designs will be at the
next meeting.
September 20: T-Shirts: Noelle passed the
designs around, and the slogan "Whoever heard of a nice piece
of elephant?" was chosen. Those interested signed up and put
their sizes on a sheet.
November 30: Website comes online. I see this, recall a
GOP3.com
post, and my interest is perked. I email OSD. An official
from OSD informs me that the t-shirt design mentioned above
was not approved by OSD.
These certainly less-than-classy sexually-suggestive
non-OSD-approved CDs official t-shirts can be ordered online still.
I don't know who Mr. Suhr's unnamed source
in OSD was but here is Kelly Behmer's email to Marquette College
Democrats that gave them approval for them to use any of the
proposed T-Shirt designs:
From: Behmer, Kelly
Sent: Tue 8/30/2005 8:05 AM
To: Gilbreath, Noelle
Subject: Re: tshirts
Noelle,
They look fine. I'd ask you to just think a bit about the
elephant quote, but it would work if that is what your group
decides. If I could just take a look at them first if you are
including anything other than the text below. Finally, could you
bring a hard copy into our office for your file and a stamp that
would be helpful.
Thanks!
Kelly
Date Published: Dec 01, 2005 - 10:55 pm
Wow. It appears as though my
last post on 1832
struck a bit of a
nerve over at GOP3.com. I had no idea that my tongue-in-cheek
exercise in procrastination would generate an entire article on
their site, especially because I’d categorize my response to
The Warrior as largely positive. That said…
Yes, our traffic jumps through the roof when we talk about
The
Warrior. “Desperate for traffic” might be a bit of an
overstatement, though – we have no advertisers and no competition,
at least in terms of other left-leaning blogs on campus, so thus,
we have no reason for desperation. The increases in traffic are
purely for excitement. No offense to those who write or enjoy
pieces on state politics, but I’d much rather argue about
The
Warrior or other campus issues than gubernatorial primaries or
Peg Lautenschlager’s driving record. Look at the comments on our
respective sites – I think our readers agree.
-I never attributed Kastner’s statements to Sroka. If you click on
the links in that sentence, the first is what Kastner said, and the
second is Bray’s response. The “you” pronoun I used was directed at
Kastner, not Sroka, and I apologize if this was unclear.
However, she did write about the “unfortunate effect of a campus
culture in which…an outspoken student is considered a bigot.”
Kastner’s McCarthy-ist posts calling out members of the Muslim and
Arab student associations based solely on their heritage, and the
outrage that followed, was the most prominent example of an
outspoken student being considered a bigot this semester.
-Concerning Henak’s employment status, my information was current
as of October 21st, as on that day, he wrote that he
currently works as a
consultant at Miller Brewing Company. Perhaps “I work as a
consultant for a firm whose current client is Miller Brewing
Company” would have been a bit more accurate.
I know how this works. This summer, I worked as a consultant for
Wells Fargo. And although my check didn’t say Wells on it, I parked
in their ramp, wore one of their ID badges, used their computers,
and worked alongside their direct employees. I might go as far as
to say that as a consultant, I owed my position to the continued
positive performance of Wells Fargo. Odds are that Henak’s terms of
employment are similar, and that he stands to gain from increased
consumer interest in Miller products. Unless, of course, he’s off
the account. Let us know, will you?
Lastly, I’d like to say that I didn’t mean to start some sort of
war between 1832 and all entities Red on campus – the “thesis” of
my post, if you will, praised
The Warrior’s current issue,
and most of my jabs were pretty lighthearted and good-natured.
Simple misunderstandings do not equal "blatant lies". I’m not going
to take this too seriously, and I suggest you do the same.
Date Published: Dec 01, 2005 - 7:34 pm
