|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 18, 2011 12:59:53 GMT -6
No one else finds it ironic that the university has a "Social responsibility" clause that apparently only applies to those whose profile is great enough to give us bad press? I mean is that really about being socially responsible or being about not wanting us to look bad publically? Beat your wife or kids and we'll not have an issue here with it UNLESS it gives us some bad press. Got a thing for promoting Neo- Nazi ideas and beliefs in your off duty hours, well we are all about free speech, unless it gives us a problem with the press. Its institutional hypocrisy and we do accept it almost without question in fact many of us defend it. Whatever happened to right is right and wrong is wrong and regardless of your station in life those things hold true and the consequences do not change either way? Just food for thought. This would be a great debate over wings and a few adult beverages (and I ain't driving). Where would it stop? Who gets to decide what's right and wrong? Sometimes it's obvious but how far do you go? Yesterday I read that a teacher in Illinois got suspended for showing clips from Jon Stewart's Daily Show in class. I love The Daily Show but I think if you've eveb watched it you realize that showing it in class may cause problems. I have no problem with the suspension. When I read the comments after the article, though, it was obvious that some people don't think that ANYBODY should watch The Daily Show anytime, anywhere. Behavior only becomes the employer's business when it affects his job. If it hurts the business they have a right to do something about it. If I get a tatoo on my a$$ it's nobody's business but mine. If I drop my pants in class to show it to my kids it becomes the schools business. Seriously? Who decides whats right? Society and institutions decide what their versions of right are- the discussion was never about whether drinking and driving was right it was about why some face punishment thats much greater then others, that your status influences your punishment. With your analogy it would be the janitor at your school got a week off without pay for showing his tatoo but you got fired. Thats the point of the discussion- should it matter what your station in life is when it comes to the punishment you recieve? |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 18, 2011 13:15:46 GMT -6
Where would it stop? Who gets to decide what's right and wrong? Sometimes it's obvious but how far do you go? Yesterday I read that a teacher in Illinois got suspended for showing clips from Jon Stewart's Daily Show in class. I love The Daily Show but I think if you've eveb watched it you realize that showing it in class may cause problems. I have no problem with the suspension. When I read the comments after the article, though, it was obvious that some people don't think that ANYBODY should watch The Daily Show anytime, anywhere. Behavior only becomes the employer's business when it affects his job. If it hurts the business they have a right to do something about it. If I get a tatoo on my a$$ it's nobody's business but mine. If I drop my pants in class to show it to my kids it becomes the schools business. Seriously? Who decides whats right? Society and institutions decide what their versions of right are- the discussion was never about whether drinking and driving was right it was about why some face punishment thats much greater then others, that your status influences your punishment. With your analogy it would be the janitor at your school got a week off without pay for showing his tatoo but you got fired. Thats the point of the discussion- should it matter what your station in life is when it comes to the punishment you recieve? I think I pretty clearly answered "Yes". |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 13:16:18 GMT -6
the punishment is a reflection on the negativity brought upon the organization. those that have a greater impact on the bottom line will reap greater benefits when things are great, and they will suffer more when things are bad - especially when their actions have an impact on said negative or positive actions.
so, yes, an individual with a higher status within an organization should likely face stiffer consequences of negative actions. with their higher status, their actions have a further reaching impact on the overall organization. so, while your status within the organization matters, it is the impact that status has upon the overall organization should you do something negatively.
for the organization, it is often about "saving face" (reactive response) and about setting up some sort of deterrent (proactive response, somewhat).
i'm not even sure what this 'argument' is, to be honest. are we saying that regardless of how big of an impact you have on the present & future potential of an organization everyone should receive the same penalties? does this then lead us to the everyone should receive the same benefits?
if an employee of a supermarket is arrested for selling drugs. the neighborhood is aware of this. is it more beneficial for the owner of the supermarket to keep the employee on even though the public may not view this store as harboring drug dealers? that could have an effect on the bottom line - which means that person is likely to be fired from his job. it is the company's way of "saving face" and trying to ease the public's mind that "we don't tolerate that and will take steps necessary to keep it from being a part of who we are"....
if the guy that collects your trash is arrested for selling drugs, is that going to influence how you take out our trash? are you going to change sanitation companies? probably not, which means he may not be fired immediately. but, you may very well change supermarkets if they continue to employ drug dealers.
so, it had little to do with "status" and more about the impact it had on the overall (bottom line) view of the organization.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 18, 2011 13:25:33 GMT -6
Something to remember is that these are penalties imposed by the university. The legal system hasn't even gotten involved yet. Now, under the law should Pinkel pay a heavier price than any other first-offender? No. Legally Pinkel doesn't even have to accept the penalties imposed by the school. He just wouldn't be able to work there anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 14:27:52 GMT -6
No one else finds it ironic that the university has a "Social responsibility" clause that apparently only applies to those whose profile is great enough to give us bad press? I mean is that really about being socially responsible or being about not wanting us to look bad publically? Beat your wife or kids and we'll not have an issue here with it UNLESS it gives us some bad press. Got a thing for promoting Neo- Nazi ideas and beliefs in your off duty hours, well we are all about free speech, unless it gives us a problem with the press. Its institutional hypocrisy and we do accept it almost without question in fact many of us defend it. Whatever happened to right is right and wrong is wrong and regardless of your station in life those things hold true and the consequences do not change either way? Just food for thought. This would be a great debate over wings and a few adult beverages (and I ain't driving). Amen bro. I'll drive. I'm just an assistant coach, so I'm sure my repercussions would be much less than yours, assuming you're a HC. |
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Nov 18, 2011 15:06:54 GMT -6
There have been a few that missed the point of this thread. I'm not arguing that life isn't fair, we all know it's not. Gary Pinkel knows life isn't fair and is taking his medicine. He's not going to challenge what has been thrown at him. What I'm saying is there are many who say, "coaches should be treated like every other citizen and should not be allowed to get away with things others do not", yet on the flip side of that why should we not be treated like every other citizen when it comes to punishment? It's a philosophical question that forces us to look deeper into our roles as coaches. I'll take the higher standard, thanks. Isn't that what most of us preach to our players. We are part of something bigger than ourselves, we are roll models for young people. IF I WANTED TO BE TREATED LIKE JUST ANOTHER PERSON I WOULDN'T BE A COACH OR A TEACHER.Pinkel still has his job. Because of the "outrageous" fines imposed on him by the university he's only going to make between 1.9 and 2.4 MILLION dollars this year (depending on which listing of his salary is correct in my 2 second internet search). That's AFTER his fines. Next year, he'll make 2.2 to 2.7 MILLION dollars. And the year after that, and the year after that... Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for him and think that compared to some of the people I know who have gotten DUI/DWI's HE GOT OFF F^CKING EASY! |
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 18, 2011 15:11:01 GMT -6
Interesting. I assume you've had buddies that were fined more than 300K, were assigned more than 50 hours of community service, and faced more public humiliation for having a couple drinks and getting behind the wheel? That's bad luck man.
If you think he "got off easy", what would you suggest would be a more appropriate punishment? If you were an AD what would you deem appropriate for a misdemeanor DUI?
Again, this thread isn't about fair or unfair. It's about the nature of being punished more because you have more responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 18, 2011 16:03:25 GMT -6
It's about the nature of being punished more because you have more responsibility. we should also talk about what to do when our A+ talent student begins to do just barely enough to make the 70 while our "not so smart" kid busts his tail, overachieves and makes a 70. both made the same grade, both should be encouraged for passing. we should talk about the standards we have for our players. starters - and those with great potential - should be held to the same performance as the 4th string kid that really tries hard but doesn't get it done. when the starting guard applies himself but misses a block, we should react the same as when the rudy-guard does the same thing but gets plowed. we should have the same expectations of them - no reason to hold one to a higher standard or anything. when i buy the $2 generic flip flops at the store i should expect the same comfort, wear/tear, longevity as the real nice $40 pair. no reason to expect that major name brand to last longer, be more durable. same standards - i mean, they're the same type of shoe. same thing with "oakleys" and "fake oakleys" .. same expectations, same standards? ... you are correct, with more responsibility there are greater expectations. but, i digress... |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 18, 2011 18:57:09 GMT -6
Reading about Gary Pinkel's DWI got me thinking, should schools drop the hammer on coaches for legal mistakes? Or, should they be treated like most other citizens by just letting the legal ramifications be the sole punishment? I agree that your employer has the right to do as it wishes, but I don't think it should be more severe than the legal consequences. Here is what the Mizzou AD has handed down as his punishment. -a one game and week long suspension (no involvement with the team) -his salary for his first week back goes to charity -his salary will be frozen for a year -forfeiting a $75,000 bowl bonus -forfeiting a $100,000 social responsibility clause -50 hours of community service The total dollar amount in this is up over $300,000. So, my question is this: They say head coaches should be treated like every other citizen in regards to the law. This isn't close to how every other citizen would be treated for this mistake. Is it fair to punish them solely because they are in a position of power? I'm not talking just big time college head coaches, but high school ones as well. Where is the line, in your opinion? seeing how he has not been convicted of anything yet i find the punishment to be a bit interesting. bit harsh but then where i come from a DUI is a traffic ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by pmeisel on Nov 20, 2011 18:30:44 GMT -6
Golden Rule: people with gold make the rules. It's between him and his bosses, and they think this is pretty important. On the other hand, some AD at some eastern school that no one cared about until they won a lot of games thought reputation and quiet was more important that what was right, and it took ten years to come out.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 21, 2011 10:59:57 GMT -6
What happens if the charges are dropped or reduced? Does the University say "oops, our bad we'll take those penalties all back or modify them? Does a coach lose his presumption of innocence or the right to have his day in court before consequences are dished out?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 21, 2011 11:03:13 GMT -6
AJ..that is a good question. I think in the Pinkel case, it all came out because he didn't "fight" the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Nov 22, 2011 10:56:47 GMT -6
Interesting. I assume you've had buddies that were fined more than 300K, were assigned more than 50 hours of community service, and faced more public humiliation for having a couple drinks and getting behind the wheel? That's bad luck man. If you think he "got off easy", what would you suggest would be a more appropriate punishment? If you were an AD what would you deem appropriate for a misdemeanor DUI? Again, this thread isn't about fair or unfair. It's about the nature of being punished more because you have more responsibility. fined 300 grand (10% of income), no. lost license, yes. Lost job because of inability to get to work because no license (100% of income)... yes. Lost house because another job couldn't be found (job search hampered by no license). YES. It may not be PUBLIC in the nightly news sense, but losing you job and and your house is pretty rock bottom, man, public or not. So yes, I know people who have had a worse situation arise from getting behind the wheel after too many drinks. While I may not have said it the best way. my point was basically that 300,000 to Pinkel doesn't carry the same weight that it does to us. He'll still make over 2 MILLION dollars this year. "getting off easy" probably wasn't the best way to say it, agreed. But, he didn't lose his job, he didn't lose his ability to gain employment, after this week he's back to coaching and drawing paychecks. When the community service is finished its water under the bridge. I don't think there should have been more punishment. However, he is the public face of an institution that is supposed to turn out people of character and integrity. His players are expected to stay out of situations like this. He is held to a higher standard. That's the way is should be. Did he do it on purpose, of course not, it was a mistake. That said, he is punished more because he has more responsibility. And I believe that it is completely FAIR. If he were held to a higher LEGAL standard, then that would be unfair and inappropriate. But that is not the case here, these are consequences from the University for what is basically conduct unbecoming a university employee of his position. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Nov 22, 2011 17:15:07 GMT -6
the public face of Missouri Football. I stand by my statement ... it's about this ^^^^^ (and the university as a whole) Now, we can get into semantics here, but the bottom line is that if an employee that is viewed as the public face (and there are more than just 1 at each) does something to negatively affect that public view then they will face harsh consequences. The law must treat him like every other swingin' richard. Mizzou pays him a helluva lot more than the Dbag math prof., giving them the right to expect more/better, and have the right to punish him more too. That said, I do hate it from a personal standpoint, that so many people are of the mindset that when someone with more messes up, they should pay more or lose more. But, that's life too. The more you have, the more you put at risk with bad decisions. Frankly in today's climate regarding DWI, I'm actually surprised he wasn't fired. I'm glad to see that they were, arguably, reasonable in their sanctions. |
|
cujo
Sophomore Member
Posts: 107
|
Post by cujo on Nov 22, 2011 20:32:46 GMT -6
Great posts guys , intelligent comments! I am from Missouri, and I LOVE PINKEL, think he is a great man, just made a mistake. BUT HE DID GET OFF LIGHT. He is the face of the university, oh lord I don't even know who the president of the University is (That tells you who the real face is), don't know who is the chairman of the English department!!! So it is hard to compare punishment.
What I am severely disappointed in is that Pinkels whole mantra is discipline. That is all I hear. How disciplined we will be, how Pinkel's teams are disciplined, you get it... I would have lost my job. And I am estatic in saying I don't want to lose him as a coach.
And that is probably why he was fined quite a bit, because the University doesn't want to fire him. It is not fair, but the normal guy doesn't make 1.5 million a year!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 23, 2011 10:02:33 GMT -6
"yes, an individual with a higher status within an organization should likely face stiffer consequences of negative actions. with their higher status, their actions have a further reaching impact on the overall organization. so, while your status within the organization matters, it is the impact that status has upon the overall organization should you do something negatively" Can someone whip this into a memo and shoot it off to Congress then Wallstreet please.  |
|
