https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...streatment

Sounds like mostly snowflakery to me with a little verbal abuse that might've gone too far.. I wonder if Troy players will stick up for him.

Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

(06-23-2020 08:00 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

You know the HS coach didn’t say that. Because if he did and the kid still went there then they’d both be idiots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-23-2020 08:00 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

While the verbal abuse allegation is troubling the bold part is just his opinion if true so hardly worth being suspended for. After all can we not have different opinions on immigration and protesting.

(06-23-2020 08:51 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:00 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

While the verbal abuse allegation is troubling the bold part is just his opinion if true so hardly worth being suspended for. After all can we not have different opinions on immigration and protesting.

While I don't have an opinion on the wall one way or another, I know the game that's been played. Wanting people to migrate here legally does not mean you hate Mexicans, but that's the trick the media has been playing since day one. I can easily see how Vic's words could have been twisted.

As far as the retard comment, I think it needs to go away, but it's correctable and not a fireable offense, IMO.

(06-23-2020 08:51 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:00 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

While the verbal abuse allegation is troubling the bold part is just his opinion if true so hardly worth being suspended for. After all can we not have different opinions on immigration and protesting.

Cancel culture is a *****, and it's a very prevalent one these days

Where’s his first amendment rights?

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

First amendment has nothing to do with what he can and can’t say at work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-23-2020 11:59 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

Speed at work is not protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

Using that logic, where were Colin Kaepernick's? Fair or not, rightfully or wrongfully, both have faced at-work consequences for "at-work" use of free speech. Difference is that they're coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

From a business point of view, WVU needs to address this problem. It could hurt the program, eg donations, recruiting, players leaving, etc

For the 10 billionth time, the 1st amendment only protects you from being thrown in jail by the government. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want to say all the time. There's nothing in the 1st amendment that says employers can't fire employees who are negatively affecting the business with their words and actions.

Now that we’ve settled the 1st amendment issue we all learned by 9th grade Civics class at the latest, can we move on the fact that of all the things mentioned in the complaint only one of them is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-24-2020 12:04 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:59 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

Speed at work is not protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Koenning is an employee of a govt institution though, so speech getting squelched is definitely a consideration that has to be handled properly. Govt entities still have 1st Amendment concerns that have to be considered in regards to employees. However, non-protected speech does not fall in this category.

Private employers do not have to deal with this.

But please, continue to give us a civics lesson.

(06-24-2020 08:34 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 12:04 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:59 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

Speed at work is not protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Koenning is an employee of a govt institution though, so speech getting squelched is definitely a consideration that has to be handled properly. Govt entities still have 1st Amendment concerns that have to be considered in regards to employees. However, non-protected speech does not fall in this category.

Private employers do not have to deal with this.

But please, continue to give us a civics lesson.

He’s also paid through a private athletic club. In your example a school janitor could called a coworker the N word and claim he’s a government employee and that is protected.

It’s nonsense. You can’t hide behind words regardless of your job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-24-2020 08:37 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:34 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 12:04 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:59 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:21 PM)Birdseye Wrote:  Where’s his first amendment rights?

If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

Speed at work is not protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Koenning is an employee of a govt institution though, so speech getting squelched is definitely a consideration that has to be handled properly. Govt entities still have 1st Amendment concerns that have to be considered in regards to employees. However, non-protected speech does not fall in this category.

Private employers do not have to deal with this.

But please, continue to give us a civics lesson.

He’s also paid through a private athletic club. In your example a school janitor could called a coworker the N word and claim he’s a government employee and that is protected.

It’s nonsense. You can’t hide behind words regardless of your job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if his contract is through the university, then he's a state employee.

And in your case no, the janitor would not be protected because you used an example of non-protected speech.

(06-24-2020 08:51 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:37 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:34 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 12:04 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:59 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  If he's deemed to have used "non-protected" speech, then what he said is not covered by 1st Amendment rights.

Speed at work is not protected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Koenning is an employee of a govt institution though, so speech getting squelched is definitely a consideration that has to be handled properly. Govt entities still have 1st Amendment concerns that have to be considered in regards to employees. However, non-protected speech does not fall in this category.

Private employers do not have to deal with this.

But please, continue to give us a civics lesson.

He’s also paid through a private athletic club. In your example a school janitor could called a coworker the N word and claim he’s a government employee and that is protected.

It’s nonsense. You can’t hide behind words regardless of your job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if his contract is through the university, then he's a state employee.

And in your case no, the janitor would not be protected because you used an example of non-protected speech.

The issue here is if he said what he said and whether they consider it a firable offense. There is zero constitutional issue to debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-23-2020 08:51 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:00 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:54 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Part of the complaint was that he told them to go inside for a meeting.

Good Lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said Vic called him a retard on the field during practice, frequently quotes the bible, believes the wall should be built to keep Hispanics out, and that protesters deserve tear gas if they're stupid enough to be out there.

It depends on whether he said those things verbatim, and not exaggerations of what he actually said. We see soon though.

It's worth nothing the player has made a claim that his old high school coach referred to Vic's coaching style as that of a "Slave Master", to coach the high school coach firmly denies making the statement.

While the verbal abuse allegation is troubling the bold part is just his opinion if true so hardly worth being suspended for. After all can we not have different opinions on immigration and protesting.

You can't in today's climate. Pisses me off.