tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post3134275918785501325..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: We need a better debate on FergusonRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-62519479075757197392014-12-22T17:37:09.763-06:002014-12-22T17:37:09.763-06:00Because I am representing John, I can't get in...Because I am representing John, I can't get into a general on-line debate about this. Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-28625833433490120292014-12-22T12:09:44.322-06:002014-12-22T12:09:44.322-06:00Rick,
I saw this comment:
“What does it mean to...Rick,<br /><br />I saw this comment: <br /><br />“<i>What does it mean to engage in civil discourse? I'd start by suggesting that it requires us to assume - until proven otherwise - the good faith of our opponents. If you find yourself believing that everyone you disagree with is monstrous or corrupt, you are almost certainly wrong. It also requires an openness to the facts; a willingness to at least adjust your argument in the face of the evidence.</i>”<br /><br />On the matter of race and the events in Ferguson, I agree completely: we need to foster civility in our political discourse; heck: we need that in our public discourse entirely.<br /><br />Of course, in the absence of civility in our discourse, those who feel they have a legitimate grievance are likely to make their case without much concern for “civility”.<br /><br />I am curious about how your call affects your opinion about another topic: the recent brouhaha at Marquette involving Professor John McAdams. This involves a topic familiar to you and I: same-sex marriage. If you recall, you and I debated the topic at length in the Law School blog about a thousand years ago. And I believe we both maintained a civil disagreement.<br /><br />I ask you about this controversy because your name has been invoked by McAdams, because of our shared history with this topic, and because I do not think McAdams’s posts qualify as “civil discourse” under your description.<br /><br />I spent a good deal of Sunday reading all the posts and comments relevant to this topic on Marquette Warrior; some things are quite clear. His comments are often disrespectful and assume bad-faith on the part of his opponents. He appears to forge ahead without regard to facts. He litters his comments with over-broad generalizations.<br /><br />Let me be clear about something: McAdams’s boorishness is not sufficient to justify shutting his site down. Whether his conduct violates/...ed MU policy is something I don’t feel informed enough about at this moment to opine on. I’d rather let that process run it’s course. But I know that, historically, First Amendment cases usually involve bad manners versus censorship. Bad manners should always win.<br /><br />Certainly, as an Old White Guy, I am quite familiar with the sins of political correctness. And yes, a discussion about same-sex marriage is appropriate in the university setting; although it is not appropriate in every class, nor on-demand by any student. Whether it would have been appropriate in Ms. Abbate’s class at the time of this dispute is not at all clear. There are certainly “legitimate” arguments against marriage equality, but (IMHO) no VALID arguments. But you already know that is my opinion.<br /><br />So, vis-à-vis “civil discourse”, how would you rate Prof. McAdams?<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.com