(07-20-2017 05:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:13 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Frizzy,

I've answered this more than once. There are limits. An employee's religion has to be reasonably accommodated. Reasonable accommodation is not a high bar for employers to meet. There is no right to be disruptive, harass others, hurt morale, hurt the business' image, or to operate in word or deed against the employer's other policies or interests.

I think that this is a fair off the cuff summary of the state of Title VII on the issue of religious discrimination and religious accommodation.

Agreed. But when Berkman made his statements he wasn't a Rice employee, was not on Rice campus, was not representing the university, and (afaik) made no reference to Rice.

True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

(07-20-2017 05:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:13 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Frizzy,

I've answered this more than once. There are limits. An employee's religion has to be reasonably accommodated. Reasonable accommodation is not a high bar for employers to meet. There is no right to be disruptive, harass others, hurt morale, hurt the business' image, or to operate in word or deed against the employer's other policies or interests.

I think that this is a fair off the cuff summary of the state of Title VII on the issue of religious discrimination and religious accommodation.

Agreed. But when Berkman made his statements he wasn't a Rice employee, was not on Rice campus, was not representing the university, and (afaik) made no reference to Rice.

I've got to run to a baseball practice. So, here's the short of what I said on that earlier. His comments were public so it's out there. It indicates a view that may be inconsistent with Rice's policies. Rice probably wants to hire people who will follow its policies. His statements could be fodder for arguments that he wouldn't follow the policies. Or, if there were ever a claim of harassment or discrimination involving him, it could be evidence of his bias and Rice's advance knowledge of that bias.

I haven't given my opinion on hiring him or not. These are considerations an employer might take into account and why it might.

(07-20-2017 05:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:13 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Frizzy,

I've answered this more than once. There are limits. An employee's religion has to be reasonably accommodated. Reasonable accommodation is not a high bar for employers to meet. There is no right to be disruptive, harass others, hurt morale, hurt the business' image, or to operate in word or deed against the employer's other policies or interests.

I think that this is a fair off the cuff summary of the state of Title VII on the issue of religious discrimination and religious accommodation.

Agreed. But when Berkman made his statements he wasn't a Rice employee, was not on Rice campus, was not representing the university, and (afaik) made no reference to Rice.

True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

If the university shares your opinion, then better that they not interview him at all, rather than crowd employment laws by sounding him out on his beliefs during a job interview (and, yes, I know they could get away with it; employers get away with stuff like that all the time. I'd just rather Rice not go that route.).

(07-20-2017 04:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  More generally, though, I think having a political litmus test for coaches is not a good thing.

Has anyone in this thread on either side of any of the issues suggested this?

do you think this would be a topic had he made ads for the other side?

(07-20-2017 05:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic

So did Leebron with regard to immigration/entry restrictions.

Quote: and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

Did you find Leebron's comments to be similarly inappropriate?
Why or why not?

Kinder et al - for sure men in drag have used women's bathrooms before. The one time I know of that it happened was at a party I was at, the ladies came to the director and asked that he be thrown out. His outfit and make up were really quite good. maybe it was his 6'4" height that gave rise to some extra scrutiny. Might have been a bit wobbly on his high heels.

On the other hand, I have been in men's rooms when women, in regular women's dress, have come in for one reason or another. I must admit, I was never in fear of being raped or molested.

I may have posted this this here before, but I just came from the World Series of Poker, an event that draws a self-selected crowd that is 95% male. So when the competition breaks came up, the men's rooms were overwhelmed. The last couple of years, they handled this problem by (temporarily) reassigning most of the women's rooms as all-gender restrooms. In five days there, I saw only three women opt to use the AG restroom - and one of them made her husband stand guard.

I can foresee a future day when the building codes will not have separate restrooms, just all-gender, all-stall restrooms. Fine with me. One restroom for everybody, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. I certainly expect the women to complain about seats being left up, pee on the floor, and/or pee on the seats, but progress has its price. For me, I am fine with it. I routinely used the AG rooms in Vegas. No problem.

What I don't understand is how things will be done with separate men's and women's rooms under this hero (or is it antihero) policy. Will we still have separate rooms except for transgenders? how will we know they are transgender, especially if they are in early stages?

Or will it be that anybody can use any restroom, any time? If so, I can see why Lance, as the father of daughters, could be concerned. I don't know the mechanisms of the law that Lance opposed.

I guess, from what you are saying, that religious schools like BYU and Liberty would be justified in requiring religious affirmation of the school's policies before hiring a coach. what if BYU hired a Methodist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, and then he was asked about Joseph Smith? Would he have to give the school's position to keep his job?

yeah, with broad boundaries, we want our nontenured employees to not wage war on our principles. But somewhere within the broad part of the bell curve, it must be OK for employees to be a little left or a little right of center. They shouldn't have to be dead on, with every issue. We are not Stepford U.

anybody, feel free to PM the details of the HERO/anitHERO stuff, as I seem to be the only one who doesn't know the difference.

I didn't think at first that Lance would be a viable option, but from some of the arguments here, i would feel better about it if that came about. I don't think his position in the bathroom wars should either qualify or disqualify him. JMHO.

(07-20-2017 06:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic

So did Leebron with regard to immigration/entry restrictions.

Quote: and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

Did you find Leebron's comments to be similarly inappropriate?
Why or why not?

Good grief, 69-- Leebron's comments mirrored that of almost every other University president, and represented the broad interests of Rice University. Yes, it might have been a political position, but it was one in the interests of the university. Can you not tell the difference?

(07-20-2017 07:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 06:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic

So did Leebron with regard to immigration/entry restrictions.

Quote:and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

Did you find Leebron's comments to be similarly inappropriate?
Why or why not?

Good grief, 69-- Leebron's comments mirrored that of almost every other University president, and represented the broad interests of Rice University. Yes, it might have been a political position, but it was one in the interests of the university. Can you not tell the difference?

So taking one side of an issue is okay, taking the opposite side isn't.

It's not the inappropriateness of public comments that matters, it's the political correctness. But we don't practice censorship.

WTF difference does it make how many other university presidents' comments mirrored his?

The entry bans on people coming in from other countries have a negative impact upon almost all universities. The President of Texas A&M had to personally intervene to get a foreign visiting scholar freed from the federal government holding him at the Houston airport. The ban would keep foreign students and faculty from coming to the University so it was in Rice's interest that LeeBron respond to that problem.

I disagree with Berkman's position about the bathroom but it reflects his sincerely held religious belief. He may think it is required by Christianity but I do not think it is required by Christianity. I do not think supposedly men entering women's bathrooms was an issue until certain grandstanding politicians decided to make it an issue. Although gender is a given for most individuals, there are some exceptions that the religious right refuses to acknowledge. Berkman may be all right as a baseball coach but he could not be an equal rights coordinator.

(07-20-2017 07:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 06:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 05:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  True, but he made a very public statement on a very controversial topic

So did Leebron with regard to immigration/entry restrictions.

Quote: and, consequently, one would expect this to come up in any future job interview at Rice; just to ensure he understands that such public comments would be inappropriate as an athletic department employee.

Did you find Leebron's comments to be similarly inappropriate?
Why or why not?

Good grief, 69-- Leebron's comments mirrored that of almost every other University president, and represented the broad interests of Rice University. Yes, it might have been a political position, but it was one in the interests of the university. Can you not tell the difference?

OO, yes there are exceptions for religious institutions. They are allowed to discriminate based on religion. I have not looked at whether BYU specifically meets that rule. And, sure, I agree that there's a zone of close enough to be considered over the plate.

On Leebron: he is part of setting university policy and his statements were consistent with Rice's policies. That's the difference. And, more importantly, it's a material difference.

If, instead, the board set a more conservative or radical course, and Leebron publicly came out against it, I'd expect that to mean trouble for him.

OO,

The answer to how would it work is that it would be the same and those crossing over in good faith would not be susceptible to prosecution or being thrown out. Those committing crimes would, as they are now, be subject to prosecution.

We don't have bathroom police standing guard at every bathroom in America to make sure that people don't cross over now. And, people do cross over at times. The statistics do not support the fear that was stoked to claim it would lead to harm.

Isn't that what bias really is - allowing rational thought and evidence to be overcome by fear, revulsion, hatred or even ignorance?

(07-20-2017 09:01 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  OO,

The answer to how would it work is that it would be the same and those crossing over in good faith would not be susceptible to prosecution or being thrown out. Those committing crimes would, as they are now, be subject to prosecution.

We don't have bathroom police standing guard at every bathroom in America to make sure that people don't cross over now. And, people do cross over at times. The statistics do not support the fear that was stoked to claim it would lead to harm.

Isn't that what bias really is - allowing rational thought and evidence to be overcome by fear, revulsion, hatred or even ignorance?

could someone PLEASE get this thread on-topic???

Rivera never visited Rice. His whole relationship was with Van Hook.

(07-21-2017 02:14 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:01 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  OO,

The answer to how would it work is that it would be the same and those crossing over in good faith would not be susceptible to prosecution or being thrown out. Those committing crimes would, as they are now, be subject to prosecution.

We don't have bathroom police standing guard at every bathroom in America to make sure that people don't cross over now. And, people do cross over at times. The statistics do not support the fear that was stoked to claim it would lead to harm.

Isn't that what bias really is - allowing rational thought and evidence to be overcome by fear, revulsion, hatred or even ignorance?

could someone PLEASE get this thread on-topic???

I'm out. maybe that will help.

(07-21-2017 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:14 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:01 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  OO,

The answer to how would it work is that it would be the same and those crossing over in good faith would not be susceptible to prosecution or being thrown out. Those committing crimes would, as they are now, be subject to prosecution.

We don't have bathroom police standing guard at every bathroom in America to make sure that people don't cross over now. And, people do cross over at times. The statistics do not support the fear that was stoked to claim it would lead to harm.

Isn't that what bias really is - allowing rational thought and evidence to be overcome by fear, revulsion, hatred or even ignorance?

could someone PLEASE get this thread on-topic???

I'm out. maybe that will help.

Every little bit helps!

Mucho Mahalo!

(07-21-2017 12:20 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:14 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:01 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  OO,

The answer to how would it work is that it would be the same and those crossing over in good faith would not be susceptible to prosecution or being thrown out. Those committing crimes would, as they are now, be subject to prosecution.

We don't have bathroom police standing guard at every bathroom in America to make sure that people don't cross over now. And, people do cross over at times. The statistics do not support the fear that was stoked to claim it would lead to harm.

Isn't that what bias really is - allowing rational thought and evidence to be overcome by fear, revulsion, hatred or even ignorance?

could someone PLEASE get this thread on-topic???

I'm out. maybe that will help.

Every little bit helps!

Mucho Mahalo!

yep. sorry I had to ask what the hullabaloo was all about instead of just taking the side against him.

Don't say "furor"

(07-21-2017 06:51 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Don't say "furor"

Corrected.

Reading today about the Kaepernick situation, I was struck by the similarity to the Berkman discussion.

An employee speaks out his mind. It causes controversy that his employer doesn't want or need. Other employers choose not to hire him as they don't need the controversy, either.

Isn't that what we were talking about?

(07-21-2017 06:51 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Don't say "furor"

Why not?