(01-28-2018 07:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-27-2018 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2018 04:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Bish,

HR is pliant almost everywhere. Name a company where HR had real power? HR people are a dime a dozen, the first ones laid off when times get hard. Many companies almost completely outsource HR (common in Silicon Valley for companies under 200 employees). They are in a position of being forced to suck up to upper management more than anyone, because they produce nothing for the bottom line. (Yet they are necessary.) I don't have a remedy, just an observation.

As for your question of shareholders, that would be State tax payers at public schools, and their reps would be the trustees/regents -- these have their own issues.

The State has a power shareholders don't: they can appoint an independent ombudsman office for Universities and take the disciplinary department out from under the President and place it under a different government office, such as the Governors, or a better a special task force of legislature (like the ethics committee) and Governor.

Private schools are all different, and I wont even speculate on how to deal with them, as I am not a believer in one size fits all policies.

A lot of people just don't understand this. Maybe not EVERYWHERE, but most places. People tend to go along, not question authority. Penn St. could have happened at a lot of schools, despite all the self-righteous proclamations. Montana, Baylor, Michigan St., North Carolina (on the academic, not criminal side) and others have demonstrated that.

Would we be more surprised if another school were similarly exposed, or more surprised if this were the last? That's an easy answer for me. Do we think that at places like Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida State and others there isn't a culture that protects its misbehaving athletes at all costs? And throughout our culture (and to be fair in most of the world) star athletes have been led to believe that they can have whatever they want, sexually.

Florida St. wasn't the same scale, but Jameis Winston and others were protected. Notre Dame's police department protected the football player who was accused of sexual assault (touching, not rape) until the woman complaining committed suicide making the case moot. On the other hand, a Rice would kick those players out.

I didn't mean to single out those specific schools to suggest I think they have the same issues Michigan State did. They came to my mind because, while I am sure all three have a lot to be proud of academically, that's not the first image that comes into your mind when their name is mentioned. The first image is great football programs. So, if a particular university is known first and foremost for its football program, that's the image the school is likely to want to protect before any other.

Not to be snarky, but I don't know anybody who, when they hear Rice or Tulane mentioned, thinks first of football. That isn't an image those schools are ever likely to feel a need to protect.

Swap out sports, student athletes, coaches, and trainers with instructors, grad assistants/post-docs, students, department chairs, deans, and provosts, and is it much different?

What really hits on this MSU thing is the institutional brand protection issue, but also the protection of leadership image. Bad jocks, coaches, and trainers are barely even the tip of any iceberg of a problem. I think you'll find ignorance on any impropriety matter across any major university.

It's impossible to protect something that doesn't have some kind of integrity, though.