(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

(06-07-2018 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

I have seen "all-gender" bathrooms in practice and would have no problem with them if they became the norm, whether through law or custom. I expect to be at a place soon where "all-gender" bathrooms are standard. Not just single user, but multiple users. No problem.

Being openly and devoutly Christian didn't seem to hurt Tom Landry's coaching. Or Hatfield's. Never seemed to affect Staubach's passing. Never heard a recruit say they selected a school based on the coach's faith or lack of it. Unless, maybe, it is Liberty or BYU.

I have no dog in this hunt. If it is Berkman, then I will support Coach Berkman, even if he comes out in favor of higher taxes or kneeling for the anthem. If it is Coach Other, I will support Coach Other. Let's just get a dadgum coach.

To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

(06-07-2018 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

I have seen "all-gender" bathrooms in practice and would have no problem with them if they became the norm, whether through law or custom. I expect to be at a place soon where "all-gender" bathrooms are standard. Not just single user, but multiple users. No problem.

Being openly and devoutly Christian didn't seem to hurt Tom Landry's coaching. Or Hatfield's. Never seemed to affect Staubach's passing. Never heard a recruit say they selected a school based on the coach's faith or lack of it. Unless, maybe, it is Liberty or BYU.

I have no dog in this hunt. If it is Berkman, then I will support Coach Berkman, even if he comes out in favor of higher taxes or kneeling for the anthem. If it is Coach Other, I will support Coach Other. Let's just get a dadgum coach.

To be clear - the issue isn't with Berkman's faith, it is with the policy he advocated for, so the examples you provided don't really address the issue. I mean, faith already plays a big role in the lives of a lot of our athletes on campus, and it plays a public role. No one has complained about that before, and likely won't in the future. The controversy is over the policy debate, not his faith.

And I, as many others do, do care about what our coaches advocate for in the public realm as it connects back to Rice and will influence the perception of our university. In Lance's case, I do not think his previous stance should be a disqualifier, but I do think that there are cases where someone's previous actions/stances should be a disqualifier. But it is definitely a case-by-case basis.

Based on your final comment, do you support a win-at-all-costs mentality that doesn't care about how a coach acts, recruits, etc? At Rice, we generally seem to have a line with our coaches, most often centered on recruiting/player development/cheating. Lance is just the first case that I can remember where politics are involved in the discussion.

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

Enlighten - yes

Shape opinions - no. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them form their own opinions.

(06-07-2018 10:22 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

Enlighten - yes

Shape opinions - no. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them form their own opinions.

And the original comment didn't suggest as much. It said to help shape public opinion through more enlightened attitudes. You're arguing that Rice does not want its students to go out and affect change - which I can tell you, is certainly not true.

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.
Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.
Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation
So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

If you guys want to continue debating the merits of bathroom bill then please PM me or Hambone10 one of us will happily split the discussion off into its own thread. It might be a good discussion, in another thread.

(06-07-2018 10:29 AM)Baconator Wrote:  If you guys want to continue debating the merits of bathroom bill then please PM me or Hambone10 one of us will happily split the discussion off into its own thread. It might be a good discussion, in another thread.

+100

(06-07-2018 10:29 AM)Baconator Wrote:  If you guys want to continue debating the merits of bathroom bill then please PM me or Hambone10 one of us will happily split the discussion off into its own thread. It might be a good discussion, in another thread.

Thank you Baconator.

I could give a rats *** about the bathroom bill. I want a baseball coach.

(06-07-2018 10:29 AM)Baconator Wrote:  If you guys want to continue debating the merits of bathroom bill then please PM me or Hambone10 one of us will happily split the discussion off into its own thread. It might be a good discussion, in another thread.

I'd split it off - you've got enough support here.

(06-07-2018 10:29 AM)Baconator Wrote:  If you guys want to continue debating the merits of bathroom bill then please PM me or Hambone10 one of us will happily split the discussion off into its own thread. It might be a good discussion, in another thread.

Please do.

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Well said.

“So much opposition to Lance among the faculty”...

I’ll start listening to the faculty on coaching decisions when they stop denigrating Athletics in classes.

(06-07-2018 11:26 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  “So much opposition to Lance among the faculty”...

I’ll start listening to the faculty on coaching decisions when they stop denigrating Athletics in classes.

Is this still happening? I graduated in 2009 and never heard of/saw anything like this. Granted I was an academ, so maybe it's more prevalent in SE courses.

(06-07-2018 11:52 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 11:26 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  “So much opposition to Lance among the faculty”...

I’ll start listening to the faculty on coaching decisions when they stop denigrating Athletics in classes.

Is this still happening? I graduated in 2009 and never heard of/saw anything like this. Granted I was an academ, so maybe it's more prevalent in SE courses.

I saw bias with several professors across departments.

I was not an athlete but was often mistook for one given my physical stature and was once walked into the first day of a class taught by a Baker Institute expert and was told that “athletes usually don’t do well in his class so I should know that before it begins.”

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

I think that 95% of the Rice faculty could care less about Rice sports, and whether or not our teams are successful. As a result, their opinions on coaching hires mean nothing to me. A couple years back Tiki and I had a nice visit with Melissa Kean, who is pretty keyed in to what Rice faculty members are thinking. At that time her opinion was that David Bailiff was doing an incredible job at Rice given the circumstances - and that we should all be thankful to have him as head football coach. She further stated that almost all the faculty people she dealt with had the same opinion: He was a good man who treated the students well and was 100% supportive of the Rice academic goals and priorities. She also clarified that faculty members did not necessarily feel that same way about Wayne. My thinking back then was "Thank God Melissa and her faculty friends are not in charge of hiring/firing coaches - especially considering hardly any of them ever actually attend the games."

I still feel that way.