Greenspan made derogatory and racist remarks while on the job. That's not at all the same as stating a position on a current political issue. I'd be unhappy if Rice based hiring decisions on where applicants stood in a current political debate - that's McCarthyism. How do you even do that without a litmus test? What about other issues - what's the "correct" side on city zoning, or state seccession?

(07-18-2017 12:16 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Greenspan made derogatory and racist remarks while on the job. That's not at all the same as stating a position on a current political issue. I'd be unhappy if Rice based hiring decisions on where applicants stood in a current political debate - that's McCarthyism. How do you even do that without a litmus test? What about other issues - what's the "correct" side on city zoning, or state seccession?

You misunderstand me. There is no litmus test. I don't care where Berkman or any other potential hire stands politically. They can be as conservative as Ted Cruz or as liberal as Bernie Sanders and it doesn't bother me.

But Rice isn't hiring assistant baseball coaches for their political or social beliefs. In this politically charged environment, I would shy away from hiring an assistant coach who plans on being outspoken on either side of the political debate. That isn't why Rice would be hiring them. No sense having them upset 40-50% of the population with controversial remarks that have nothing to do with their job. No sense having them run off potential recruits who might have different beliefs then them.

If Berkman wanted to come back to Rice and Rice wanted to have Berkman come back, maybe it would be a great fit. But I would hope Berkman (or any other potential hire) would be mindful of the current political environment and realize that just because they can exercise free speech doesn't mean it is good for Rice or Rice Athletics if they choose to do so.

Hiring Berkman would be a huge national news splash, and would pay immediate dividends in recruiting. This guy is a pro baseball Hall of Famer, for crissakes. Don't you think he pretty much knows what the HC position entails already ? What's the worst that could happen to us with this hire ? What other candidate is looming out there that would be head and shoulders above him ? He can learn nuances on the job.

It would be crazy to tell him we can't offer him the position because he needs to be an assistant first. He'll tell us to go soak our heads, and poof there goes an incredible opportunity. We need him a helluva lot worse than he needs us.

I can't imagine Lance taking this job just so he can have some sort of pulpit for his own political views.

(07-18-2017 12:51 PM)davidw Wrote:  Hiring Berkman would be a huge national news splash, and would pay immediate dividends in recruiting. This guy is a pro baseball Hall of Famer, for crissakes. Don't you think he pretty much knows what the HC position entails already ? What's the worst that could happen to us with this hire ? What other candidate is looming out there that would be head and shoulders above him ? He can learn nuances on the job.

It would be crazy to tell him we can't offer him the position because he needs to be an assistant first. He'll tell us to go soak our heads, and poof there goes an incredible opportunity. We need him a helluva lot worse than he needs us.

I can't imagine Lance taking this job just so he can have some sort of pulpit for his own political views.

Couldn't agree more.

(07-18-2017 11:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:17 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Basing hiring and firing decisions on an employee's personal beliefs is illegal if not relevant to the job.

No one said based on personal beliefs; rather, based on inappropriate and politically incorrect comments. That is not only legal, but has been a cause for employee dismissal not only sports and broadcasting, but all across industry.

It seems to be a cause for dismissal only if you hold conservative views.

(07-18-2017 01:23 PM)ranfin Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:17 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Basing hiring and firing decisions on an employee's personal beliefs is illegal if not relevant to the job.

No one said based on personal beliefs; rather, based on inappropriate and politically incorrect comments. That is not only legal, but has been a cause for employee dismissal not only sports and broadcasting, but all across industry.

It seems to be a cause for dismissal only if you hold conservative views.

Correct.

Our main problem with Greenspan was that the athletic department was going downhill on his watch and his racist comments contributed to that by having basketball players leave. Hatfield had some very religious right views but it was not hurting the team on the field but LeeBron had to point out that those were not an official policy of the University. Hatfield was doing a good job the first years he was here but football had changed but the time he left in 2005 just like it happens with most old coaches.

I think Berkman is on the bubble about ultimately getting into the Hall of Fame. He was a good player but not as good as Biggio or Bagwell. Berkman's political views might reflect that he has been around Second Baptist. I would not hold his views against him even though I think differently. The real thing to be decided is how good he would be at managing the Rice Baseball team.

(07-18-2017 12:16 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Greenspan made derogatory and racist remarks while on the job. That's not at all the same as stating a position on a current political issue. I'd be unhappy if Rice based hiring decisions on where applicants stood in a current political debate - that's McCarthyism. How do you even do that without a litmus test? What about other issues - what's the "correct" side on city zoning, or state seccession?

Here's their career stats. Seems pretty close.

AB R H HR RBI SB AVG OBP OPS
Bagwell 7797 1517 2314 449 1529 202 .297 .408 .948
Biggio 10876 1844 3060 291 1175 414 .281 .363 .796
Berkman 6491 1146 1905 366 1234 86 .293 .406 .943

I remember Hatfield getting in trouble on this board for something he said regarding his Christian views. I don't see Berkman's stuff as much different, even if not rooted in religion.

Sure, we don't need any Klansmen or Nazis or left wing anarchists as coach, outspoken or not. But I think it wrong to say people who have X position on current issues are not hireable, but those with Y position are not only hireable, but desireable.

I'm not sure if anyone is saying X beliefs disqualify him from being head coach. The takeaway I'm getting by those who are expressing some reservation about Lance is more of, "Rice would probably rather not have a coach publicly make declarations about controversial or divisive topics, as those tend to distract and bring social/political controversy, which we ideally could do without from one of our coaches."

One can be an atheist, and I would assume most here would not believe that that should disqualify him/her from being a coach at Rice. But if that coach were constantly making charged and controversial comments about the stupidity of religion and those supernaturalists who subscribe to it, I think we'd all rather not have that occur, no? And if the coaching applicant were known to be a rhetorical bomb thrower, would anyone be surprised if the AD felt it necessary to at least consider that as a factor in the hiring process?

Note: I'm not saying that Lance is a bomb thrower at all. His views on HERO are clearly in line with many others'. I happen to disagree with him. His views on HERO--as expressed in that commercial--would not color my opinion on whether he should head coach at Rice. But to my point, if "bathroom legislation" and other laws unfriendly to the LGBT community became a passion for him, such that he became known for being outspoken banner carrier for that cause, at that point it *would* color how I would feel about his becoming coach.

By the way: nobody asked me, but I don't think this is a political discussion such that it should be moved to the Quad just yet. The topic at hand, as of right now, is whether a coach's political views should factor in his candidacy to be a Rice head coach. I say no. But how outspoken he is, and how he messages his beliefs publicly (is he like Ted Nugent? Or does he just quietly believe whatever he believes?), could factor in, in my opinion.

So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

(07-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

Then Lance should not consider the job. That's his call. However, if hired as a coach he represents the University, and his personal political/religious beliefs should not be expressed publicly.

(07-18-2017 04:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

Then Lance should not consider the job. That's his call. However, if hired as a coach he represents the University, and his personal political/religious beliefs should not be expressed publicly.

Do you apply the same standards to professors?

(07-18-2017 04:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

Then Lance should not consider the job. That's his call. However, if hired as a coach he represents the University, and his personal political/religious beliefs should not be expressed publicly.

Do you apply the same standards to professors?

Absolutely.

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

Then Lance should not consider the job. That's his call. However, if hired as a coach he represents the University, and his personal political/religious beliefs should not be expressed publicly.

Do you apply the same standards to professors?

Absolutely.

We have a lot of professors to fire then...

(07-18-2017 04:32 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So he can have the views, he just can't express them. But I doubt that a faculty member who took the opposite position on that very issue would have any problem. It seems very much to be a one-way disqualification.

If I were Berkman, and I were offered the position with the proviso that i could not express my personal beliefs, I would tell Rice to shove it. Matt Deggs at Sam pretty openly wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve, and that didn't seem to hurt them last year.

I don't agree with the specifics of the Texas bathroom bill as drafted, but I would never work anywhere that expressing my genuinely held beliefs was a o\problem.

Then Lance should not consider the job. That's his call. However, if hired as a coach he represents the University, and his personal political/religious beliefs should not be expressed publicly.

Do you apply the same standards to professors?

Absolutely.

We have a lot of professors to fire then...

I said grounds for dismissal. It all depends on the context of the comments and the forum in which they were presented.

Berkman is at best on the bubble as far as getting into the Hall of Fame. He has good statistics but they are not overwhelming. It was hard enough to get Biggio and Bagwell in the HOF. I agree the Rice job is about the baseball and not the politics.

(07-18-2017 12:51 PM)davidw Wrote:  Hiring Berkman would be a huge national news splash, and would pay immediate dividends in recruiting. This guy is a pro baseball Hall of Famer, for crissakes. Don't you think he pretty much knows what the HC position entails already ? What's the worst that could happen to us with this hire ? What other candidate is looming out there that would be head and shoulders above him ? He can learn nuances on the job.

It would be crazy to tell him we can't offer him the position because he needs to be an assistant first. He'll tell us to go soak our heads, and poof there goes an incredible opportunity. We need him a helluva lot worse than he needs us.

I can't imagine Lance taking this job just so he can have some sort of pulpit for his own political views.

So if he came out in support of HERO he should be fired? Or is it only if he is opposed? Just looking for clarification as to what liberties of free speech he's allowed to express while still remaining employed.

(07-18-2017 04:38 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  So if he came out in support of HERO he should be fired? Or is it only if he is opposed? Just looking for clarification as to what liberties of free speech he's allowed to express while still remaining employed.

Sounds like the university bureaucracy needs to expand to include an office to decide these things. Truth Arbitration Committee.

Free speech is even more important than HERO. Sweeping bad opinions under the rug does not to get rid of them. Information is the best counter to mis-information such as that stupid bathroom television ad. If Berkman is the right coach to keep Rice baseball as one of the top teams in the nation, then hire him. If some one else could do a better job at it, then hire them.

(07-18-2017 04:38 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  So if he came out in support of HERO he should be fired? Or is it only if he is opposed? Just looking for clarification as to what liberties of free speech he's allowed to express while still remaining employed.