(07-18-2017 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:32 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

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

(07-18-2017 04:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  [quote='waltgreenberg' pid='14452152' dateline='1500412824']

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.

Ah, yes, of course. "Context", that's the ticket!

(07-18-2017 04:51 PM)75src Wrote:  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.

This ^^^^^^^

(07-18-2017 04:53 PM)ranfin Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:32 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

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

(07-18-2017 04:26 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  [quote='waltgreenberg' pid='14452152' dateline='1500412824']

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.

Ah, yes, of course. "Context", that's the ticket!

Well, it has to be. If you're going to fire someone for what they believe, you have to obfuscate the reason. You can't just say "I fired him because he's [insert undesireable category or opinion]".

(07-18-2017 04:51 PM)75src Wrote:  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.

We're hiring an assistant coach right now; not a head coach.

(07-18-2017 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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.

Part of my job is working for a university. They pay part of my salary. It's been made fairly clear to me that if I talk to the media and I'm identified as being a part of, or working for, or appearing on the behalf of this university, that my presentations and/or comments will be vetted by my dean. I don't have a problem with that. After all, if I'm identified in my remarks as working for somebody, it's pretty easy for listeners to think that my employer endorses my statements.
However, I've never been asked about my religious or political views by university officials. Many of my co-workers are very active in politics and high profile positions in churches and other institutions..like school boards, etc. In these non-university positions they go to great lengths to make sure that they don't come across to the general public as representing the school in their statements. I totally agree with this approach.
The university should respect an employees views. But the employee should make sure that his views don't come across as being endorsed by the school. And if he doesn't, I think the school could let him go.
Or not hire him in the first place.

(07-18-2017 05:33 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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.

Part of my job is working for a university. They pay part of my salary. It's been made fairly clear to me that if I talk to the media and I'm identified as being a part of, or working for, or appearing on the behalf of this university, that my presentations and/or comments will be vetted by my dean. I don't have a problem with that. After all, if I'm identified in my remarks as working for somebody, it's pretty easy for listeners to think that my employer endorses my statements.
However, I've never been asked about my religious or political views by university officials. Many of my co-workers are very active in politics and high profile positions in churches and other institutions..like school boards, etc. In these non-university positions they go to great lengths to make sure that they don't come across to the general public as representing the school in their statements. I totally agree with this approach.
The university should respect an employees views. But the employee should make sure that his views don't come across as being endorsed by the school. And if he doesn't, I think the school could let him go.
Or not hire him in the first place.

+1000. This is pretty much my perspective on it (but more clearly stated than my attempts above).

I think we should discuss this in the restroom. Which one should we choose?

(07-18-2017 05:33 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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.

Part of my job is working for a university. They pay part of my salary. It's been made fairly clear to me that if I talk to the media and I'm identified as being a part of, or working for, or appearing on the behalf of this university, that my presentations and/or comments will be vetted by my dean. I don't have a problem with that. After all, if I'm identified in my remarks as working for somebody, it's pretty easy for listeners to think that my employer endorses my statements.
However, I've never been asked about my religious or political views by university officials. Many of my co-workers are very active in politics and high profile positions in churches and other institutions..like school boards, etc. In these non-university positions they go to great lengths to make sure that they don't come across to the general public as representing the school in their statements. I totally agree with this approach.
The university should respect an employees views. But the employee should make sure that his views don't come across as being endorsed by the school. And if he doesn't, I think the school could let him go.
Or not hire him in the first place.

That's my point. Your employer does not - and, legally, cannot - prohibit you from expressing a religious or political POV, except when you are speaking on behalf of the university. Nor can they require you to maintain public silence on issues at all times, but only when you are representing the university.

Everyone is focusing on the free speech/political stuff which is not nearly as important as the following three problems.

1. There is a reason that great pro players like Lance never become good college coaches. College coaching is incredibly demanding and it requires tons of work. Lance probably has over $100 million in the bank and a ranch and a family and a church and a campaign manager that place demands on his time. I think this would be little more than another toy for Lance, and not his top priority. Wayne will not hire assistants who have not demonstrated a propensity to work their rears off. Rice should not hire a head coach who has not demonstrated the same thing. Successful college coaches work hard, they out work everyone else at all cost and that does not sound like Lance.

2. In his short stint at Rice it is my understanding that he never understood that the college game requires different approaches than you might take with a hall of famer. Those great college players that could not be admitted under Wayne are still not going to be able to don the old English R. The P5 schools will still offer more money to kids we would want.

3. Then you get to the part of how you deal with players confronting the rigors of Rice academics. How do you motivate student athletes when you have commented about the fact that you majored in eligibility and that you were 2-0 against the honor council? I just don't think that this is a good fit for either party.

(07-18-2017 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I remember Hatfield getting in trouble on this board for something he said regarding his Christian views.

FTR: he did say “I believe in the Bible,” but that was not what got him in trouble.

Quote:A collegiate coach for 36 years, Mr. Hatfield has never had a player come out to him. If a player did go public about being homosexual, the coach would be concerned both about the effect on the team and about what the parents of other athletes would think, he says. He would ask the player, “What happened? What changed since we recruited you? When did this come about?”

After all, people make a choice about homosexuality, Mr. Hatfield says, just as they make choices about drinking, about going to church. “I’ve never seen any scientific study say there’s a homosexual gene.”

(07-18-2017 06:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:33 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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.

Part of my job is working for a university. They pay part of my salary. It's been made fairly clear to me that if I talk to the media and I'm identified as being a part of, or working for, or appearing on the behalf of this university, that my presentations and/or comments will be vetted by my dean. I don't have a problem with that. After all, if I'm identified in my remarks as working for somebody, it's pretty easy for listeners to think that my employer endorses my statements.
However, I've never been asked about my religious or political views by university officials. Many of my co-workers are very active in politics and high profile positions in churches and other institutions..like school boards, etc. In these non-university positions they go to great lengths to make sure that they don't come across to the general public as representing the school in their statements. I totally agree with this approach.
The university should respect an employees views. But the employee should make sure that his views don't come across as being endorsed by the school. And if he doesn't, I think the school could let him go.
Or not hire him in the first place.

That's my point. Your employer does not - and, legally, cannot - prohibit you from expressing a religious or political POV, except when you are speaking on behalf of the university. Nor can they require you to maintain public silence on issues at all times, but only when you are representing the university.

So, if GreyOwl72 (or the Rice baseball coach) goes to a block party or a community meeting or a protest, can he state his beliefs on a controversial topic even though most of the people know where he works? Is it enough to preface his remarks with "just speaking for myself..."? What if his belief does not coincide with the politically correct stance, like Hatfield's?

(07-18-2017 06:04 AM)wheredidmypantsgo Wrote:  please please please keep politics out of here. I need at least one corner of the internet I can hide out in and talk about important stuff like sports.

This was Lance's choice, when he recorded that ad.
It sucks, but it is what it is.

(07-18-2017 06:18 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  Everyone is focusing on the free speech/political stuff which is not nearly as important as the following three problems.
1. There is a reason that great pro players like Lance never become good college coaches. College coaching is incredibly demanding and it requires tons of work. Lance probably has over $100 million in the bank and a ranch and a family and a church and a campaign manager that place demands on his time. I think this would be little more than another toy for Lance, and not his top priority. Wayne will not hire assistants who have not demonstrated a propensity to work their rears off. Rice should not hire a head coach who has not demonstrated the same thing. Successful college coaches work hard, they out work everyone else at all cost and that does not sound like Lance.
2. In his short stint at Rice it is my understanding that he never understood that the college game requires different approaches than you might take with a hall of famer. Those great college players that could not be admitted under Wayne are still not going to be able to don the old English R. The P5 schools will still offer more money to kids we would want.
3. Then you get to the part of how you deal with players confronting the rigors of Rice academics. How do you motivate student athletes when you have commented about the fact that you majored in eligibility and that you were 2-0 against the honor council? I just don't think that this is a good fit for either party.

These would be the reasons why I would question hiring him.

(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.

It is a fairly simple process for him or anyone else to make it clear that the views that he is expressing on any issue are his personal views and not the position of the university.

I have two problems with this. One, I doubt that you or the university would have much problem if he expressed the opposite view on the issue at hand. I would venture a guess that it is far more likely than not that faculty members did in fact freely and openly express opposing views while the issue was being battled, with no adverse reaction or consequences from anywhere. I think we are at a bad place if it is okay to express an opinion on one side of an issue but not the other. That looks too much like the thought police for my taste. Two, for reasons listed elsewhere, I don't see Lance as the savior of Rice baseball, or the right person to be passed the torch after Graham, and IMO that should make the rest of the discussion moot. I would expect another Clyde Drexler result, and that is most assuredly not what Rice baseball needs.

(07-19-2017 02:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

It is a fairly simple process for him or anyone else to make it clear that the views that he is expressing on any issue are his personal views and not the position of the university.

I have two problems with this. One, I doubt that you or the university would have much problem if he expressed the opposite view on the issue at hand. I would venture a guess that it is far more likely than not that faculty members did in fact freely and openly express opposing views while the issue was being battled, with no adverse reaction or consequences from anywhere. I think we are at a bad place if it is okay to express an opinion on one side of an issue but not the other. That looks too much like the thought police for my taste. Two, for reasons listed elsewhere, I don't see Lance as the savior of Rice baseball, or the right person to be passed the torch after Graham, and IMO that should make the rest of the discussion moot. I would expect another Clyde Drexler result, and that is most assuredly not what Rice baseball needs.

I agree with you on the first part 100%.

The second part not so much. I certainly could be wrong but I just cannot fathom Lance treating this job as Clyde treated the UH job. Lance is coaching at a high school....willingly. He made 120+ million in his career and he's coaching 14-18 kids with parents who obviously know it all because they helped coach the little league all star team one summer. He doesn't have to do this I'm guessing. He apparently loves coaching baseball. I think (in fact I know) that Lance wants the job. Hire him now and get the ball rolling for next year when OG steps down. If people are worried that hiring Lance will bring about some type of controversy with political/religious beliefs then they're basically being ridiculous. I mean we have the MOB already, right? Geez.

Hire him, make a splash, steal some big recruits from other regional powers and see if we can get back to Omaha.

Just my .02

(07-17-2017 11:20 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  There is a reason that great pro players like Lance never become good college coaches. College coaching is incredibly demanding and it requires tons of work. Lance probably has over $100 million in the bank and a ranch and a family and a church and a campaign manager that place demands on his time. I think this would be little more than another toy for Lance, and not his top priority. In contrast, Wayne has simply out-scouted, out-worked and out managed his way to a successful career. I think he was driven by hard work because he never had much growing up.

I do not think it is fair to criticize Lance Berkman on the basis of work ethic. He was not a player that had a clear path to the big leagues from high school. He got to the major leagues as a result of a lot of hard work. That said, coaching is much different than playing, and takes a different skill set. Playing experience is one (of many) factors that is beneficial to a coach, but we should go with someone that has a proven track record and skill set as a coach with reason to believe it would translate to the college level.

All of that said, I'm stunned by all of the attention that the bathroom issue has gotten here, and across the country in general. It seems like the only sensible solution is that if we hire Lance Berkman as head coach, we must permanently shutter the bathrooms at Reckling so as to avoid controversy. And, to be equitable, maybe that should be applied as a campus-wide policy.

(07-19-2017 02:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

It is a fairly simple process for him or anyone else to make it clear that the views that he is expressing on any issue are his personal views and not the position of the university.

I have two problems with this. One, I doubt that you or the university would have much problem if he expressed the opposite view on the issue at hand. I would venture a guess that it is far more likely than not that faculty members did in fact freely and openly express opposing views while the issue was being battled, with no adverse reaction or consequences from anywhere. I think we are at a bad place if it is okay to express an opinion on one side of an issue but not the other. That looks too much like the thought police for my taste. Two, for reasons listed elsewhere, I don't see Lance as the savior of Rice baseball, or the right person to be passed the torch after Graham, and IMO that should make the rest of the discussion moot. I would expect another Clyde Drexler result, and that is most assuredly not what Rice baseball needs.

First off, my perspective would be absolutely the same whether the views being expressed aligned with my own.

Second, as I've oft-mentioned, I am not advocating that Lance be hired as the "coach in waiting", with stated promises as such. IMO, he has to prove himself, and determine for himself whether the grind is worth it. Having said that, given that the Assistant Coach opening that we currently have is for the hitting and infield coach, as well as key recruiting coordinator, I am supportive of Lance being given the opportunity (provided he and Wayne can get on the same page with regards to coaching philosophy). Obviously, given Wayne's contract situation, if he proves successful in the assistant coaching job and determines he's up for the task, he'd be a viable candidate for Wayne's replacement whenever the time comes.

Does it seem to anyone else that our assistant coaches might be reading the writing on the wall and are looking for a way out? Lost our more senior assistant to OU and maybe also losing our volunteer assistant. HC is 81 and doesn't have a contract after next year, you think guys would be lining up to be an assistant coach.

(07-19-2017 08:35 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Does it seem to anyone else that our assistant coaches might be reading the writing on the wall and are looking for a way out? Lost our more senior assistant to OU and maybe also losing our volunteer assistant. HC is 81 and doesn't have a contract after next year, you think guys would be lining up to be an assistant coach.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. Van Hook left to OU because his mentor was named Head Coach and offerred him a job. As for Shep, if he does follow Patrick to UIW, it would be because he was offerred a paid assistant coaching slot as opposed to a volunteer assistant at Rice. As mentioned before, as much as I do like Scott and think he's done an outstanding job in his current role, I personally don't think he the right choice to fill our current assistant coaching vacancy.

Why do you think people aren't lining up for our open assistant coaching position? They certainly were last year when several VERY high profile pitching coaches expressed an interest in the job eventually given to John Pope.

(07-18-2017 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:33 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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.

Part of my job is working for a university. They pay part of my salary. It's been made fairly clear to me that if I talk to the media and I'm identified as being a part of, or working for, or appearing on the behalf of this university, that my presentations and/or comments will be vetted by my dean. I don't have a problem with that. After all, if I'm identified in my remarks as working for somebody, it's pretty easy for listeners to think that my employer endorses my statements.
However, I've never been asked about my religious or political views by university officials. Many of my co-workers are very active in politics and high profile positions in churches and other institutions..like school boards, etc. In these non-university positions they go to great lengths to make sure that they don't come across to the general public as representing the school in their statements. I totally agree with this approach.
The university should respect an employees views. But the employee should make sure that his views don't come across as being endorsed by the school. And if he doesn't, I think the school could let him go.
Or not hire him in the first place.

That's my point. Your employer does not - and, legally, cannot - prohibit you from expressing a religious or political POV, except when you are speaking on behalf of the university. Nor can they require you to maintain public silence on issues at all times, but only when you are representing the university.

So, if GreyOwl72 (or the Rice baseball coach) goes to a block party or a community meeting or a protest, can he state his beliefs on a controversial topic even though most of the people know where he works? Is it enough to preface his remarks with "just speaking for myself..."? What if his belief does not coincide with the politically correct stance, like Hatfield's?

That's an interesting and important question. I'm not aware of any specific instance where that has come up. We did, recently, have an instance where one of the important university employees gave an impromptu interview to the media and expressed some pretty controversial negative views regarding a recent university matter. He didn't lose his job but after getting an ear-full from his employer he gave no more interviews on that subject.
I'd like to believe that I could publicly express my opinions on non-university matters and get no interference from my employer. And I really think I could. But that's just my local situation.