Indeed, given Sonia Sotomayor's liberal views, it would be odd if she were not a racist and sexist.
Marquette University's own nutty professor John McAdams has concocted an hilariously incoherent attack against Prof. Jodi O'Brien, the Catholic scholar and would-be dean of academics whose job offer was rescinded by Marquette this week.Marquette says O'Brien's writings contain negative statements about marriage and family, and yesterday canceled an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "saying this was now a legal situation."
McAdams, on the other hand, is unbound by such circumspection.
McAdams claims to have reviewed "every single article" in O'Brien's bibliography and concludes mockingly that her area of expertise is in "victim studies," which is a vintage McAdams buffoonery in addition to being a crass political exercise in poisoning the well.
▪ Incidentally I'm sure Dr. O'Brien would find McAdams endlessly fascinating in her capacity as a clinical social scientist, and it's hoped he may appear in an anecdotal "vignette" in some future "victim study" (with McAdams standing for the victim archetype, of course).
Anyway, "every single article" that is, right up until the point where McAdams (or "we," as he refers Royally to himself) admits that he "lack[s] the stomach to extensively examine this kind of literature."
You see, he's also intellectually fearless, in the Jesuitical tradition.
So since he (they?) hasn't actually examined it to any substantive degree, McAdams instead charges that Prof. O'Brien's scholarship is "mediocre" because it hasn't appeared through what he calls "top-level" publishers, none of whom he cares to enumerate.
Which is amusing because of the three articles McAdams provides ("at random" from among dozens, he says: Yeah, right) one appears in Sexualities, a journal of Sage Publications, one is in an anthology put out by Routledge, a preeminent social sciences publisher of international renown, and the third is from the Seattle Journal for Social Justice, an imprint of the Seattle University School of Law.
That's McAdams's entire case: his (their?) admittedly groundless invective, oblivious that SU ranks among the top 100 law schools.
As for Marquette Law School, which is attached to the institution McAdams is fearlessly defending against Prof. O'Brien's "mediocre" scholarship, sadly, it's unranked: Tier 3. McAdams rarely fails to entertain (the reasons for which he's most likely completely unaware), but his own credibility is in almost tragically short supply.
McAdams might have been on to something had he been comparing The Botanical Review with High Times. Except he isn't, at all.
However, McAdams's special gift for unwittingly demolishing his own rigorously crafted arguments remains second to none, top-tier.
Finally, McAdams decides the O'Brien affair is an "embarrassment" to Marquette University. On that account, he sure as hell ain't helping.
Because believe it or not, he teaches political science there.
Photo illustration: I'm huntin' wascawwy wesbians.
5 comments:
she makes it clear that she’s not too keen on marriage of any kind, claiming “I work hard to educate others about the fundamental need to forge a strong disconnect between culturally accepted definitions of ‘family’ and the political economic assessments of the distribution of benefits and assurances for U.S. citizens.” (p. 471)
The quotes around “family” tell the story.
McAdams' quotes around "family" tell the story of his contempt for the very institution of marriage.
Oh no! Now I've done it too! I've used quotation marks to indicate that I'm talking about a word! In other news, I think that 'John' is short, and 'McAdams' conveys nothing of intellectual worth.
If O'Brien is reading that blog, by some mischance, I have no doubt she's breathing a sigh of relief at dodging the bullet of being that clueless dipshit's colleague.
She'd have been his boss, which she might relish.
Does he consider the WPRI rag in which he dumps his work upholding the death penalty (which, last I checked, was contra the Catholic position) to be a top-notch publication?
I can practically guarantee she would not relish it. Being a jackass's academic-administrative superior affords virtually none of the opportunities to straighten them out or send them packing that come with boss-hood in most non-academic contexts.
It's a much bigger pain for the senior admin than it is for the jackass.
WPRI submissions are peer-reviewed in the true sense of the word (unlike, for example, the proverbial "jury of one's peers," according to which no child molester has ever been tried by a panel of 12 other child molesters).
Post a Comment