(05-13-2021 03:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 12:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  The mere fact that someone is named in a lawsuit isn't by itself grounds for blackballing them from future employment. Surely Northwestern was aware of these allegations when they hired him. They must have believed he was not culpable. Did something change?

All it would take is for one affair to come to light. Once you are targeted in such a way, you are radioactive.

Or these articles which tie him to groping when there is every indication he had absolutely nothing to do with it other than not responding aggressively to the complaints.

Seems like a tone-deaf decision to go forward with the hire and then wait for a fallout weigh-in. Waiting for the full effect of the court of public opinion to assess the appointment. Sure, there was going to be a fringe that despised the move, but, what an understatement and misperception about how serious this was.

I think this the norm post-Sandusky, post-Nasser, #MeToo and Time's Up. Zero tolerance; the pendulum swinging back the other direction. I don't fault those demanding change and dumping on the institution for the hire, and yet I still feel bad for the guy having to go through this. This is on the university, its leadership (not just the president and cabinet, but its governing board, as well). Schools really do need to reconcile where athletics and related activities exist within the scope of the institution. And we know this; it's nothing new. Except we keep seeming to have this conversation over and over again over the years that, I feel anyway, it's still a conversation schools themselves are just flagrantly refusing to honestly have about itself. One that honestly isn't far from the same tone and severity as those of the anti-football movements in the 50's and 60's: a decisive and undemocratic move to completely avoid certain conversations and cultures within a campus by taking something down or away. How should a college athletic department run, what is it's purpose, who does it hire, and where is integrity under all of it? This is on Northwestern, not a bad hire or "snowflakes" on the fringes.

(05-13-2021 06:14 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Seems like a tone-deaf decision to go forward with the hire and then wait for a fallout weigh-in. Waiting for the full effect of the court of public opinion to assess the appointment. Sure, there was going to be a fringe that despised the move, but, what an understatement and misperception about how serious this was.

I think this the norm post-Sandusky, post-Nasser, #MeToo and Time's Up. Zero tolerance; the pendulum swinging back the other direction. I don't fault those demanding change and dumping on the institution for the hire, and yet I still feel bad for the guy having to go through this. This is on the university, its leadership (not just the president and cabinet, but its governing board, as well). Schools really do need to reconcile where athletics and related activities exist within the scope of the institution. And we know this; it's nothing new. Except we keep seeming to have this conversation over and over again over the years that, I feel anyway, it's still a conversation schools themselves are just flagrantly refusing to honestly have about itself. One that honestly isn't far from the same tone and severity as those of the anti-football movements in the 50's and 60's: a decisive and undemocratic move to completely avoid certain conversations and cultures within a campus by taking something down or away. How should a college athletic department run, what is it's purpose, who does it hire, and where is integrity under all of it? This is on Northwestern, not a bad hire or "snowflakes" on the fringes.

Tone sounds great unless you are the person being screwed by the "tone". If he were guilty of something he would have never gotten the job. That does not include whatever skeleton that someone else has probably pulled out and is threatening his family. That's usually how it works - "go away or we will tell the wife and family". It works best on good guys with naïve wives and young children. Dogs are often immune.

I used to do a lot of hiring. https://www.linkedin.com/in/haydennrichardson

This application would have gone in the round file because it tends to show a need for attention that is beyond what many organizations are offering.

He got the job because the powers that be wanted him to have the job. They could have had the pick of the litter. They apparently had four finalists and picked the only one that is currently a defendant in a case where they may have mishandled sexual harassment claims. I doubt he was that far and away better than the other finalists. If you would have hired people this way, Statefan, you would not have been hiring people for very long.

https://theathletic.com/2585205/2021/05/...maginable/

Both can be true. You can have a self-obsessed, over-the-top accuser and still have someone who may have not handled it as seriously as it should. Still, the school hired the guy. The school would have known about this (it’s also named in the suit). If you hire the guy, defend it. This looks more like a school making a stupid hire with a leader who talks out of both sides of his mouth.