(01-15-2021 04:01 PM)ksu315 Wrote: You created a website and a group to have him removed. How is that not an agenda??
When someone accuses you of having an agenda in a negative way, as you appeared to do in your post ("But i do think alot of this venom towards him on here may be over the top and from certain people with agendas very wrong. Keep in mind."), the implication is that you have a hidden agenda or hidden purpose.
That agenda could be revenge. It can be financial or personal gain.
Members of our group chose to come forward to the media as whistleblowers, to request action by the president, and then started the website with a transparent purpose because we believed Nielsen should be removed. We were transparent in providing the reasons we believed Nielsen should be removed. Should he not have been removed, based on ROI vs his performance as AD, we asked that Nielsen not receive an extension when his contract expired in 2021.
Choosing not to extend Joel is what happened.
There was no hidden agenda within our group. No sinister motive. In my case, my only benefit in Nielsen being pushed out is seeing a place I truly love, as well as people and teams I care about, get the chance for a new beginning and an end to the current toxic environment.
Had you meant "agenda" at its base definition of following a plan, you can certainly say we had an agenda in wanting Nielsen to be removed.
Keep in mind, that while you claim we were wrong, nobody has ever challenged any of the claims we made on the website in asking for Nielsen's removal. If we had been even a tiny bit less than truthful, we would have been hit with a libel suit, or at the ery least a case and desist order. Of course, the best defense for libel is the truth, and we have documents and witnesses to back up every claim.
Based on that, I don't believe you can credibly say the claims we made were wrong. You can absolutely have the opinion that the incidents we cite as well Nielsen's performance were not worthy of his removal as AD. You can also be of the opinion that protecting a known sexual harasser, being less than truthful in an HR investigation, and discriminatory practices against women, minorities and others, are no big deal. We don't agree, which is fine. I'm proud to be on our side with regard to those matters.
As I mentioned before, Joel never really mistreated me. In fact, he was good for my career. He hired me away from a dying profession in the newspaper business, for which I am grateful. I benefitted from being from that hire beyond having a new job, taking advantage of the opportunity to earn a master's degree through my work at Kent State. That training allowed me to propel myself into an entirely new career which I love.
While I am grateful for the opportunities created by Joel hiring me, I am not a person who will offer anyone blind loyalty. I was a witness to what horrible mistreatment of others. And like everyone else who worked for Joel, I witnessed his mismanagement of KSU Athletics first hand.
I'm glad Kent State chose not to renew Joel. I hold no grudge and don't care what happens to him next. I just look forward to seeing what is in store next for the Golden Flashes.