John McAdams is a tenured professor of political science at Marquette University. McAdams posted a comment on his blog criticizing Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy instructor, for her interchange with a student in her Theory of Ethics class. Lynn Turner, also a member of the faculty, expressed a negative opinion of McAdams’s comment in a letter to the Marquette Tribune. Meanwhile, on Abbate’s complaint, the university convened the Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC)—which consists entirely of faculty members, including Turner—to consider the case. Acting on the FHC’s recommendation, Marquette suspended McAdams for a semester without pay and ordered him to apologize to Abbate. He refused, and filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Marquette. [McAdams v. Marquette University, 383 Wis.2d 358, 914 N.W.2d 708 (2018)] (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.) 

(a) Apply the IDDR approach to consider the ethics of Marquette’s convening of the FHC in McAdams’s case. 

(b) From a legal perspective, was the university’s disciplinary procedure the functional equivalent of arbitration, limiting McAdams’s right to litigate his claim in court?  Explain.