(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

But that eventuality, or its equivalent, was reached long, long ago. Many universities have had many, many faculty who are avowed supporters of totalitarian Communism and of specific Communist regimes, which have terrorized and murdered orders of magnitude more people than the KKK ever has or ever could. Similarly, there are universities whose faculty have publicly expressed support for Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other gangs of murderers. Yet university administrations tend to bristle like porcupines at the idea that such avowals should be disqualifications from employment.

This is not a comment on the question of whether execrable political opinions should or should not be disqualifying; it is merely an observation that academia has proven itself -- over and over and over again -- to be a contemptibly poor judge of the matter.

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

Agreed!

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think universities should teach critical thinking in terms of how to go through the process of thinking. I don't think they should teach what the results of that thought process should be. With respect to the issue under discussion, I think universities should teach students how to look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders. Teaching them to express the views of one set of stakeholders without considering the others is teaching what to think, not how to think.

Back when I was a student, this is how I described my education at Rice as opposed to the experience of many of my peers at big state schools.

Far more often (at least as young undergrads) our conversations over the summer were 'well my prof said this or that' from them, vs... 'yeah, I read that too but then we considered this alternative'. Critical thinking vs retention and regurgitation

I hope that hasn't changed

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my original comment. Care to explain?

Your post #43 fills in the blanks.

I want to hear you explain how either of those posts indicate that I think universities as a whole are supposed to be "Big Brother" and the "Thought Police" - and what exactly you mean by that comment.
You response fails to do that.

I think you make it pretty clear that you see universities having a mission telling students what to think about certain issues, and expecting those students then to take those issue positions out into the world. If you don't see that as Big Brother/Thought Police, then we probably aren't going to agree.

I think universities should teach critical thinking in terms of how to go through the process of thinking. I don't think they should teach what the results of that thought process should be. With respect to the issue under discussion, I think universities should teach students how to look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders. Teaching them to express the views of one set of stakeholders without considering the others is teaching what to think, not how to think. And that seems pretty Big Brother/Thought Police to me.

You may wish to respond with some version of a "one position is clearly right" argument. That's what Big Brother said.

To the bolded, not really. What I am saying is that Rice has a mission to promote its values, and really, so does every university. But promoting values and attempting to get its students to follow and embrace those values is not at all the same as trying to get those students to think a certain way about an issue. Instead, they're trying to build a foundation through which students will tackle those issues, and Rice is helping to identify what are some of the problems this world faces.

Where did I ever say that Rice should tell students WHAT to think about certain issues?

I mean, did you even read my response? Ask for two reasons. 1) If you had you would see I was saying that Rice does, and should, point students towards problems that need to be solved. 2) If you had, you would see that I was very clear in drawing a line at where universities should tread lightly, and that is when they begin to get into areas that are not directly related to their education.

I'm not advocating that universities should not teach critical thinking skills - it's important for all students to learn how to critically work through a problem and evaluate a subject. But a university could not function if it actually held itself to the standard you are trying to hold it to - of never taking a side and never telling students what to think about an issue (or what issues to focus on). Ironically, I say this because of your last comment, a comment which you are trying to tie me up with, but that you must also agree with. You implicitly admitted that there are times where "one position is clearly right" by saying students should "look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders." By inserting reasonable, you're admitting that there are issues where one position is clearly right, because there are no reasonable positions by stakeholders on the other side.

And there are cases like that, where in academia a professor must tell students what to think about an issue because not all sides are equal. For example, why would a geology professor need to present both sides of the flat earth conspiracy? Perhaps I'm looking at this from too much of an engineering perspective, and not enough from an academ perspective, and so I see more instances where there isn't really isn't room for debate.

In short, a university should challenge its students to think critically about all topics, should help direct its students by instilling common values, and, when appropriate, also provide guidance and leadership on how to think about certain things.

(06-07-2018 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think universities should teach critical thinking in terms of how to go through the process of thinking. I don't think they should teach what the results of that thought process should be. With respect to the issue under discussion, I think universities should teach students how to look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders. Teaching them to express the views of one set of stakeholders without considering the others is teaching what to think, not how to think.

Back when I was a student, this is how I described my education at Rice as opposed to the experience of many of my peers at big state schools.

Far more often (at least as young undergrads) our conversations over the summer were 'well my prof said this or that' from them, vs... 'yeah, I read that too but then we considered this alternative'. Critical thinking vs retention and regurgitation

I hope that hasn't changed

I imagine it depends on the classes you took and your major.

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

(06-07-2018 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

(06-07-2018 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
Anne Lamott

(06-07-2018 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

The left is tolerant of people and ideas, as long as they are the right people and ideas.

Lance Berkman supporting an issue in a manner any devout protestant would support and have supported since the beginning of time is labeled as a disqualification despite...wait for it...the established laws providing for equal protection of religion. So let's convict all of Rice and their alums, students, sports teams, and squirrels to support at all costs an equal rights ordinance, but then prohibit the employment of a person based on views they expressed in the public that were religiously motivated. Brilliant work people.

You either believe in equal protection or you do not. The intellectual dishonesty that is motivating the emotional response to disallow Lance based on his comments is disheartening.

I think Lance's opposition to equal rights was distasteful and will be judged poorly by history. However, it is his right as well as anyone else to hold the opinion that the equal rights ordinance would inhibit their religious beliefs as private citizens. Let's go ask all of the devout Muslim professors what they think of the ordinance because their religious views on gender and equality are typically more restrictive than protestants.

But hey, that guy over there has religious speech that goes against the progressive wind sock issue of the day, so let's burn him at the stake and bury his employment chances for life unless he can re-educate himself on the correct way to apply critical thinking. Then we can be enlightened by this process.

I have an idea. Let's not disqualify Lance based on his religious speech, but should he be hired, welcome him into the diverse community that is Rice. Perhaps he will change his worldview once he is faced with being in a leadership position at the university. Maybe critics of religion and their followers will learn something as well. Maybe people can actually get some real world experience in diversity of opinion and thought.

(06-08-2018 12:21 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  Lance Berkman supporting an issue in a manner any devout protestant would support . . .

Not exactly: there were many devout Protestants on each side of that particular ordinance, and many more whose opinions were mixed.

If you would like to meet a set of devout Protestants whose views span that entire range, you are welcome to join me this Sunday.

(06-07-2018 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think universities should teach critical thinking in terms of how to go through the process of thinking. I don't think they should teach what the results of that thought process should be. With respect to the issue under discussion, I think universities should teach students how to look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders. Teaching them to express the views of one set of stakeholders without considering the others is teaching what to think, not how to think.

Back when I was a student, this is how I described my education at Rice as opposed to the experience of many of my peers at big state schools.

Far more often (at least as young undergrads) our conversations over the summer were 'well my prof said this or that' from them, vs... 'yeah, I read that too but then we considered this alternative'. Critical thinking vs retention and regurgitation

I hope that hasn't changed

I imagine it depends on the classes you took and your major.

That approach is alive and well in the School of Engineering. You can see it abundantly in the capstone design courses (perhaps most overtly in Computer Science), where students and faculty constantly challenge each other. Their readiness to do so is not merely impressive; it is inspiring.

(06-07-2018 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:

Quote:I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold.

is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

(06-08-2018 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At the extremes, it does matter. Being for the KKK or being an anarchist or an ISIS supporter is damaging. Not these petty little political positions. The vast majority of positions within the extremes, I don't care, as long as he wins.

I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold. The ones the students are supposed to hold and change the world to conform to.

Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:

Quote:I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold.

is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

(06-08-2018 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:

Quote:I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold.

is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

You are correct that no other candidate for Rice baseball coach bears scars. Under that solitary viewpoint microscope you would be correct.

Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that publicly not just voiced, but *advocated* the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear any of the the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude that Lance bore, and continues to bear for his actions. And, Lance was excoriated not just *now* (i.e. being a potential 'standard bearer for Rice') but at the time he made the commercials and immediately thereafter. That is a fantastic litmus test. That the *same* excoriation occurs even years after the event is just more proof of that.

That is a clear indication of the 'political correctness' of the position being a major differentiator for the topic of 'bathroom equality'.

(06-08-2018 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you *really* think that had Berkman come out in the opposite stance to the bathroom bill in the same manner and amount he did that we would even be having this (continued) conversation in this manner?

Sorry, common sense says that the reason it is an issue in the slightest is because of the stance he took. The simple fact that this is being discussed this much later than that event is pretty much proof positive of that......

I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:

Quote:I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold.

is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that advocated the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude.

We do? Are they coaches or prospective coaches at Rice? Unless I've missed it, I don't think we know of scores of prominent Rice coaches/candidates. Can you share your list?

The closest comparison outside of Rice that I can think of is Pop, who regularly pontificates on social issues. He has received both praise and blow back from people who agree or disagree with his social stances. He is praised by some and others denounce their support for the team.

(06-08-2018 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hadn't really thought about it (I told everybody I didn't really care about this issue), but the more we discussed, the more it became clear that the problem was that Berkman was on the "wrong" side, not that he took a side.

Similar to the "problem" we had with Hatfield...

I would be fine with all unisex bathrooms all through the land. Been there, done that, fine with me. But my experience with unisex bathrooms is that a lot of women, and some men, are not comfortable with them.

Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:

Quote:I think there would be no problem with Berkman had he come out FOR the bathroom bill, an equally public display of politics. So this seems to be a case of being politically incorrect. Our baseball coach CAN be politically active, if he just chooses the correct opinions to hold.

is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that advocated the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude.

We do? Are they coaches or prospective coaches at Rice? Unless I've missed it, I don't think we know of scores of prominent Rice coaches/candidates. Can you share your list?

The closest comparison outside of Rice that I can think of is Pop, who regularly pontificates on social issues. He has received both praise and blow back from people who agree or disagree with his social stances. He is praised by some and others denounce their support for the team.

Lad please read. I noted the wider group of 'equally prominent people', not the miscroscopic population of Rice coaches that you focus on. The cogent question isnt whether Rice coaches suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy, but whether 'people' suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy.

Turning this around, please tell us *any* equally prominent person who advocated the position contra-Lance that bore anything *near* the level of excoriation at that time. Please tell us any equally prominent person who *still* bears that excoriation in the manner that Lance apparently still does.

Or do you simply beleive that since Lance is so super duper prominent that he alone is in this special group?

(06-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually the question was directed at Lad, as he seems to take disagreement with that.

The singular fact that we are discussing this at all points to your posit being true.

If it werent true, this issue would be an absolute nothingburger and this wouldnt be a discussion at all. Yet here we all are....

I as well dont have an issue with the underlying election. Nor do I begrudge their opponents, that is their right to hold a view like that.

But it is fundamentally obvious that the reaction that we are discussing about Lance is simply *because* he had the temerity to espouse the contra-side of the issue from the liberal viewpoint. I think OOs quote of:
is absolutely spot on. To say the opposite would mean that this sharp discussion has no reason to exist; there are no bad feelings towards Lance on the issue of his vocalizing support for his side of the issue, and he isnt 'dinged' for being on the 'wrong side of an issue'.

I guess quantum message board thread theory as well as any works, since there isnt a cogent reason why this discussion persists years after the event, let alone why it even sprang into existence (since being on the politically wrong side of an issue isnt the root cause for this particular discussion years after it occurred....)

Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that advocated the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude.

We do? Are they coaches or prospective coaches at Rice? Unless I've missed it, I don't think we know of scores of prominent Rice coaches/candidates. Can you share your list?

The closest comparison outside of Rice that I can think of is Pop, who regularly pontificates on social issues. He has received both praise and blow back from people who agree or disagree with his social stances. He is praised by some and others denounce their support for the team.

Lad please read. I noted the wider group of 'equally prominent people', not the miscroscopic population of Rice coaches that you focus on. The cogent question isnt whether Rice coaches suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy, but whether 'people' suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy.

Turning this around, please tell us *any* equally prominent person who advocated the position contra-Lance that bore anything *near* the level of excoriation at that time. Please tell us any equally prominent person who *still* bears that excoriation in the manner that Lance apparently still does.

Tanq - I did read. You edited your post after I responded...

(06-08-2018 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your logic doesn't hold up here. To OO's comment, there's no way to know if there would be NO problem if Lance was on the other side of the issue, because we don't know how those who did not support the bill would have reacted. I know of no other example of a current or potential Rice coach publicly advocating for a political issue.

And yes, the people complaining right now would not be complaining if Lance had come out on the other end, but that does not mean there are not others who would have made noise for the opposite reason.

This is why I would prefer our Rice coaches not insert them into policy debate, ESPECIALLY around social issues that can be divisive. I'd rather no one have a reason to fault them for their advocacy of an issue, so we could just focus on their coaching acumen and resume.

Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that advocated the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude.

We do? Are they coaches or prospective coaches at Rice? Unless I've missed it, I don't think we know of scores of prominent Rice coaches/candidates. Can you share your list?

The closest comparison outside of Rice that I can think of is Pop, who regularly pontificates on social issues. He has received both praise and blow back from people who agree or disagree with his social stances. He is praised by some and others denounce their support for the team.

Lad please read. I noted the wider group of 'equally prominent people', not the miscroscopic population of Rice coaches that you focus on. The cogent question isnt whether Rice coaches suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy, but whether 'people' suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy.

Turning this around, please tell us *any* equally prominent person who advocated the position contra-Lance that bore anything *near* the level of excoriation at that time. Please tell us any equally prominent person who *still* bears that excoriation in the manner that Lance apparently still does.

Tanq - I did read. You edited your post after I responded...

actually was in the process of editing it during or before.... but please imply some more about my intellectual dishonesty. Further, the term 'people' (not Rice coaches, mind you) was not changed, if you perchance noticed.

The unedited version read (and still reads) 'people', not 'Rice coaches'.

edited to add:
Per your request, a simple roster of Houston city council and several higher profile local politicians publicly advocated FOR the bill (almost all the inner city US Congress-critters, almost all the inner loop Texas House and Senate members, etc. etc. etc.)

Annise Parker has never been excoriated to the level of Lance's or Bob McNair's views and support against the bill, and the now-current Houston mayor (Sylvester) most certainly hasnt. Heck, I hadn't even moved back to Texas at the time, but the list of higher profile politicians who publicly supported the passage shows no one of *any* prominence on the pro-bill side to really have suffered an iota of harm in the manner that Lance did, and apparently continues to occur.

Look forward to your list of people on the pro-passage side that have suffered slings and arrows of outrageous fortune due to their support of it. The excoriation of people in the matter seems highly (if not completely) weighted to the 'not politically correct side', nothwithstanding your assertion that it is a figment of imagination.

(06-08-2018 09:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet we know of many, if not scores, of other equally prominent people that advocated the position opposite Lance, yet they dont bear the marks of excoriation in anywhere near the scope, breadth, and magnitude.

We do? Are they coaches or prospective coaches at Rice? Unless I've missed it, I don't think we know of scores of prominent Rice coaches/candidates. Can you share your list?

The closest comparison outside of Rice that I can think of is Pop, who regularly pontificates on social issues. He has received both praise and blow back from people who agree or disagree with his social stances. He is praised by some and others denounce their support for the team.

Lad please read. I noted the wider group of 'equally prominent people', not the miscroscopic population of Rice coaches that you focus on. The cogent question isnt whether Rice coaches suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy, but whether 'people' suffer because of the political correctness of their opinion/advocacy.

Turning this around, please tell us *any* equally prominent person who advocated the position contra-Lance that bore anything *near* the level of excoriation at that time. Please tell us any equally prominent person who *still* bears that excoriation in the manner that Lance apparently still does.

Tanq - I did read. You edited your post after I responded...

actually was in the process of editing it during or before.... but please imply some more about my intellectual dishonesty. Further, the term 'people' (not Rice coaches, mind you) was not changed, if you perchance noticed.

The unedited version read (and still reads) 'people', not 'Rice coaches'.

You said "equally prominent people," so in a conversation about how a potential Rice coach was being judged by Rice fans, and how that fan group would react to someone having the opposite stance. OOs response that started this line of conversation, was related to Berkman's application to Rice and how his change in stance would have affected it. There's no leap needed to take your comment of "equally prominent people" to mean you were talking about, you know, other potential Rice coaches.

I did offer an example of someone in a similar, but more public role, in my response, to try and broaden the conversation. You know who Gregg Popovich is, right?