(04-05-2013 07:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  I thought the Rice 'brand' is about taking the high ground and trying to rise above allegations and demonstrate how the brand is 'inclusive' even when being 'inclusive' seems to be working against you. Seems like trying to fight it in the mud (i.e., media) is actually going against the brand. Who knows what happened or did not happen but I expected one of the highest academic learning institutions in the world to protect their brand by living its values which in this case is the high road approach Leebron took.

We all may not like it and want to see some 'fight' in it and perhaps some of that 'fight' is happening behind-the-scenes but I would be surprised to see that in public. What is the upside for taking on 20-year old kids in public? What is the upside of taking on racial discrimination claims (esp against Middle Eastern claims in broader geopolitical context) in public? Zero. If anything, it risks fanning the flames, giving the story additional legs, and reinforcing 'stereotypes' about red-neck Texas. Media has moved on already to Auburn and Rutgers. 15-min is up. Story is dead.

Nobody on Parliament knows who is right and what happened. Many want to use these accusations to fire RG (b/c of frustrations on other issues) whether they are true or not. If they prove to be true, then I would agree but last I checked there has been no proof/evidence that they are true. Just accusations. I do hope in private there is a full investigation as we need representatives who are going to live the Rice brand and its values. We have to trust the people in charge to do what is right and by the President of the University saying in public they are baseless has to carry some merit that they have already been investigated. However here, there is way too much judge and jury wanting to act on accusations vs. hard evidence.

Owl 40 explain to me one thing - why did Leebron feel the need to release his letter now to explain Rice's position? According to your thesis he should have not released any public explanation of Rice's position and just work behind the scenes. As alumni we are asked to contribute to the needs of the University and when accusations are made against our University and our AD specifically are we to assume things are being handled behind the scenes? Apparently, Leebron felt the need to release the letter because the matter has gotten out of hand; I just wish he was more proactive and released this letter a lot earlier before the press had a chance to dictate the story. Taking the high road does not mean you can't defend your position publicly against the accusations being made by the press.

(04-05-2013 07:20 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Nobody on Parliament knows who is right and what happened. Many want to use these accusations to fire RG (b/c of frustrations on other issues) whether they are true or not. If they prove to be true, then I would agree but last I checked there has been no proof/evidence that they are true. Just accusations. I do hope in private there is a full investigation as we need representatives who are going to live the Rice brand and its values. We have to trust the people in charge to do what is right and by the President of the University saying in public they are baseless has to carry some merit that they have already been investigated. However here, there is way too much judge and jury wanting to act on accusations vs. hard evidence.

I prefer that we terminate Greenspan for job related reasons only. This way, his firing is unrelated to the incident, however, we get rid of him in the process.

PR is a big part of the AD's job. RG has no upside and yet has managed to get his name (and dragged Rice's with it) tarnished in the media. Rice needs to do what is right for Rice independent of the actual allegations.

Auburn has taken a decidedly different approach to dealing with their current controversy. Here is their AD's letter to the Auburn community. Chizik has also been outspoken in recent interviews. They are addressnig the accusations head on with what they consider the facts. Interesting to see the contrast in approaches.

http://auburn.247sports.com/Board/42/Jay...17944728/1

Here's Sorenson's take on the Rutger's AD based on a previous interaction.

(04-05-2013 07:48 AM)louismcc Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 07:34 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 02:44 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Morcos was ethically challenged before he arrived at Rice, and few can claim he is innocent in trying to dismantle the Rice MBB team in retaliation for not having his contract renewed.

And Braun chose to bring Marcos into the men's program. No accountability. The AD and coach stay employed.

To me it seems that dismissing the AD and coach while legal action is on-going, articles being written, denial letters being sent, positions being taken, etc. would undercut Rice's position as stated in that letter. I would hope that when the dust settles on all of this that appropriate action will be taken based on the ultimate outcome of the situation. There are lots of issues that seem to warrant dismissal but doing so at this point would probably result in Rice having to defend itself in additional lawsuits and respond to more allegations in magazine articles.

Regrettably, I think you are spot on. Greenspan quietly exits when his contract expires amid lukewarm praise for his tenure. Braun stays employed until the litigation with Morcos is resolved. I think Braun has to go for his questionable hire and the results. It just can't happen in this current environment.

Leebron Letter Wrote:After we first received notice of the former coach's allegations, we hired an outside law firm to conduct an investigation into those specific accusations. That investigation found no evidence of discrimination.

(04-05-2013 08:30 AM)grol Wrote:  Here's Sorenson's take on the Rutger's AD based on a previous interaction.

This is my concern with the Kazemi investigation. Rutgers performed an investigation of the coach's actions back in December and decided to suspend him for three games and put him through counseling. Now it's months later with nothing new in the case except the release of an old video that resulted in the coach being fired.

You would think that the original investigation would have uncovered stories of the coach's actions, if not the tape itself, and the coach would have been fired then. However, since the coach wasn't fired it implies something else happened, such as there was never an investigation, there was one but it was half-assed and found nothing, there was a full-fledged investigation and a cover-up of the results, or the investigation came back with full results, an 'appropriate' punishment was determined, and the firing is solely a reaction to public pressure from the video. There may be some other possible answers, but none of them reflect well on the school and the AD, who's a scumbag according to Sorenson.

Back to the Kazemi case, Rice had a third-party perform an investiagtion that found "no evidence of discrimination". In light of the Rutgers case, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned what else may have happened in our situation with our AD. Hopefully the third-party law firm did a better job than whatever happend at Rutgers, but as it currently stands, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Owl 69 has it right:

(04-05-2013 07:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is a big difference between real discrimination and what is actionable under the statutes, particularly in the "hostile environment" area. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Rice is guilty of zero discrimination, but Greenspan created a "hostile environment" through stupidity on his part. I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't know all the facts, but it is entirely consistent with all the facts that I do know.

Kazemi has essentially alleged hostile environment; Rice has denied discrimination. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I was glad to read President Leebron's statement regarding the allegations, but several questions were raised. First, the confirmed failure of the NCAA to conduct any investigation into the allegations on its own, is disturbing and proof of its existing double-standards vis-a-vis ESUs/BCS/Big $$$ schools and everyone else. The NCAA, without apparently conducting any investigation at Rice or giving Rice any due process, made a decision that benefitted USC and Oregon, and harmed Rice, both on the court and now in the court of public opinion. Ask the other members of the PAC-12 how they feel about how the NCAA handled the hardship waiver, or Oklahoma St. and St. Louis (both of whom were defeated by Kazemi and Oregon in the NCAA tournament). I'm not familiar with NCAA bylaws, but I am still fuzzy as to how/why the alleged actions of Greenspan created such a hardship that Oraby and Kazemi would be cleared to play IMMEDIATELY upon their transfers. And by no means does this excuse Braun/Greenspan/the Administration for the way they are alleged to have acted and responded if these allegations are correct. It is just something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Does Rice get the same benefit of the doubt if the transfers were coming to it from USC and/or Oregon?

Secondly, the timing of the release of this letter once again solidifies Rice's perceived contempt/disdain/distrust/misuse of the media to shape the narrative and its overall public perception. The SI.com article did not come as a surprise to anyone at Rice - Rice was sought for comment and responded with the same media press release that it issued back in the Fall 2012. It spent a week allowing the allegations laid out in the article to bounce around, at the same time, taking a beating from a public perception standpoint. How great would it have been had this letter been delivered to SI and included in the article? It would have really made the NCAA look bad, and tempered some of the heat that Rice was getting over the past week. I spoke to several alums, co-workers, family members, etc., who, after having read the SI article, were aghast at what was alleged and Rice's response to same. Having Leebron's email come out then would have gone a long way to temper those reactions and create doubt in the various tales being told. Why wasn't such a response ready to go after you got the call from SI looking for comment? Additionally, the timing of it, content aside, looks way too suspicious. Leebron, et al., didn't feel compelled to issue a statement such as his letter of yesterday after the transfers, or after the SI article. Rather, it was after a special SA/Thresher forum was called, and more discussoin on the issue was being generated on campus, did they feel compelled to issue an extensive statement, one that, as far as most can tell, hasn't been sent out to media outlets beyond the hedges. Given the heat that the NCAA continues to find itself in for various missteps, Rice's statement and description of the NCAA's "investigation", or lack thereof, really would have gotten some play. I understand it is not considered "the Rice way", but there is a difference between not swinging at a pitch in the dirt and basic self-defense.

I don't know what happened, and it is hard to say whose version of events is right or wrong. I sincerely hope that our AD did not engage in those acts that he is accused of doing, and if he did, I would hope that the Administration would take all necessary and proper steps to relieve him of his position ASAP. On the other hand, I would sincerely hope that Morcos, Kazemi and Oraby would not stoop to such a level as to fabricate allegations of racism further their personal agendas. Just a sad situation for the university all around.

(04-04-2013 11:36 PM)HooCares Wrote:  Question: given the damage to the Rice "brand," so to speak, why hasn't Rice filed a defamation suit?

I'm not a lawyer so I readily admit I may be (likely am?) wrong. But I wonder how Rice could make it's case.

As I understand things, I believe Rice did conduct an extensive investigation (at least it seems extensive to me). I understand the results to be:
1. there is no evidence that inappropriate comments were made, and
2. there is no evidence that either student complained about his treatment by anybody in the Athletic Department to anybody.

I don't know what more one could reasonably expect an after the fact investigation to come up with.

If my understand the situation right, then I guess the other side would simply argue, "Well, just because you can't find evidence doesn't mean nothing was said. And just because you can't find anybody the students talked to doesn't mean they weren't injured."

From there is just devolves into "We said / They said".

I can't see a defamation case having any result other than both parties being dragged through the mud to no positive conclusion.

But again, I'm no lawyer so I'm mostly just speculating.

As for the NCAA... As I understand the Hardship Process, it's: 1. the student-athlete makes his/her case, 2. the NCAA rules. The process makes no allowance for the departed university to make it's case nor for the departed university to appeal the NCAA's ruling. (However, the student-athlete does apparently have some ability to appeal.)

So as it relates to the NCAA ruling, about the only thing the departed university can do is grumble - which is what Rice is doing.

As for making the case to the court of public opinion... When I first heard about this I advocated for a vigorous public defense - I don't like being associated with or supporting a bigoted organization. Then I was asked the following questions:

1. How do you think the media and public opinion would react if Rice called a press conference at the very beginning of this to say, "We deny these allogations of racism!"? Would the media say, "Ok, I don't know anything about this but I accept Rice's denial." or would they say, "I don't know anything about this, but where there's smoke there's fire. I'll go find some dirt and write a story."?
2. Who would you recommend lead Rice's attack on the credibility of these two here-to-fore respectable Middle Eastern students - the University's Jewish President, or the University's Jewish AD, or the University's Jewish basketball Coach?

I think there's plenty to criticize about this situation - the hiring of the Assistant Coach primarily. And I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that some in the Athletic Department should loss their jobs - not my conclusion but I understand the argument.

But I don't find fault with the way the University is handling the allogations. I don't think there is a good way to handle this.

News cycles are short; the public's attention is short. By Monday (or perhaps now), nobody will be talking about this but those of us this board.

I think this is a well written note by Leebron and a great move.

Unfortunately, when the race card is thrown, the automatic assumption is guilt. It's a dangerous weapon when recklessly and irresponsibly wielded. It's the lowest and dirtiest form of attack when it's used unjustly. Sadly, it appears as though that's been used here. Not to get overly political, but it was used extensively in 2011 and 2012 in and unfortunately was effective. It's very hard to defense because it's such an emotional issue and being branded a racist is game over for a career.

This is an interesting article how the NCAA is so inept of enforcing college athletics rules and regulations. Why even part of the NCAA?

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...cle-040413




If the NCAA petition was an outright lie, I'm not sure why Rice has put up with it. Kazemi has made it clear that he wants to finish his Rice degree, but a lie of this magnitude would certainly be a violation of Rice's Code of Student Conduct. It could result in nonacademic discipline, including suspension and not being eligible to receive a degree.

Of course, such decisions are private, so who knows if anything of this sort is being considered?
[/quote]

(04-04-2013 09:41 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Drama, negativity, and allegations gets the news, folks. We all know that. It's what the media lives for. Disgusting if you ask me. The media in this country has no conscious, nor do they face any true system of checks and balances. Nice response by our President for the most part.

The reality is that the media and Hollywood are the ultimate in free enterprise. They show what sells

JD tweeting now info from the letter, mainly the fact that the NCAA did no investigation.

(04-05-2013 04:28 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  JD tweeting now info from the letter, mainly the fact that the NCAA did no investigation.

Someone still covers Rice athletics for the Chronicle?!? I generally think JD does an OK job, but he hasn't posted anything since Bailiff was extended and has barely covered baseball. Wonder if he'll be at the football scrimmage?

Chronicle article:

http://www.chron.com/sports/rice/article...413364.php

Who got this letter from Leebron? I didn't get one though I receive all kinds of email messages from the university. Was it only sent to basketball season ticket holders or Owl Club members? This seems like something the broader Rice community would be interested in.

(04-05-2013 05:19 PM)Owl-88 Wrote:  Who got this letter from Leebron? I didn't get one though I receive all kinds of email messages from the university. Was it only sent to basketball season ticket holders or Owl Club members? This seems like something the broader Rice community would be interested in.

All I know for sure is that students received it...I'm assuming also faculty.

One thought -

When debating topics in college, my roommate and I would sometimes get interrupted by a friend who would walk in, interrupt the discussion and ask which of us was right.

The response was invariably "The truth is in the broad area in between."

The truth of this issue falls into that category no doubt.

Were the players discriminated against? Very likely not.
Were they subject to boorish behavior? Probably, at times
Did it bother them? Probably
Did it bother them enough to overrule everything good associated with the team and the university and cause them to leave? Given the timing, evidence suggests not. How long was Kazemi here.
Would they have left if Marcos was still employed by Rice? My guess is no. What if no one else had transferred?
Did Kazemi help himself by leaving? Give me a break. Of course.
Did Kazemi get advised on what he needed to do to get eligible immediately? Don't know, but I'll bet he got a lot of advice from Marcos and Oregon.
Did Kazemi think the waiver request would ever be public (and was he advised there was almost no chance the NCAA would check the details of his waiver justification?) Probably told "this is what we need to do, they don't check, and once you've played Game 1, it's all water under the bridge." but who knows? Marcos or whoever leaked the waiver information seems to know a lot about the situation for someone who wasn't integrally involved.

There's a lot of other questions obviously.

But it seems to me that anyone assuming either that (a) everything in the press is true, Greenspan is a ______ and he's 100%, completely to blame for this, or (b) Kazemi is a scheming liar who we ought to take action against . . . . . . is probably going to be mostly wrong.

Maybe they're both just human and made mistakes or incorrect assumptions or followed tainted advice?

At this point, Kazemi is better off as a result. Greenspan has other issues that are probably a lot more substantive than this, but because the discrimination card has been played, as others have pointed out, he's guilty until proven innocent.

Anyone else out there tired of this issue, and convinced that, while it's not trivial, that it's been (largely) blown out of proportion by the media, particularly since the NCAA did no investigation?

Quote:But it seems to me that anyone assuming either that (a) everything in the press is true, Greenspan is a ______ and he's 100%, completely to blame for this, or (b) Kazemi is a scheming liar who we ought to take action against . . . . . . is probably going to be mostly wrong.

Quite frankly, I think the prevailing attitude is regardless of whether everything in the press is true, Greenspan is a ______ and should be relieved of his duties. I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in the middle with regards to this incident.

(04-05-2013 06:03 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:But it seems to me that anyone assuming either that (a) everything in the press is true, Greenspan is a ______ and he's 100%, completely to blame for this, or (b) Kazemi is a scheming liar who we ought to take action against . . . . . . is probably going to be mostly wrong.

Quite frankly, I think the prevailing attitude is regardless of whether everything in the press is true, Greenspan is a ______ and should be relieved of his duties. I agree with you that the truth is somewhere in the middle with regards to this incident.

close. I think the prevailing attitude is that RG is worthless, so anything bad anybody says about him must be true, and he should be fired regardless.