Ulty

Huh? I thought you were talking about Lane Kiffin.

No.

It's a different world than when you and I were that age. One thing I stress to students when I conduct training, and that I talk to my pre-teen son about now, is to understand consent. What it is and what it isn't. A lot of reports and complaints stem from situations where someone thought they had consent, but maybe they didn't really. It takes a lot of evidence to make a finding, but even so, you don't want to find yourself accused and in the middle of one of these processes. Be smart enough to stay out of those situations, always get explicit consent, and don't screw around with a girl who is impaired. Some people (@NUance) have a problem understanding this. It's a complicated deal, and those of us who do this work are still navigating the fallout from the Title IX changes. It does swing the pendulum for sure. The intent of some of the changes were for the sake of due process, which is not a bad thing. But another intent is to reduce complaints, which it does by complicating the process, not by making campuses safer. Word!

I'll try to answer as best as I can, I apologize for the wordiness. I am not a lawyer and none of this is not legal advice. Different universities will have different policies, and different legal jurisdictions (for example Nebraska is in the 8th appellate circuit, and I live in the 6th circuit) may have different legal guidelines to follow unless something has been superseded by SCOTUS. First of all, the Title IX regulations were entirely rewritten by DeVos's Dept of Ed last year, and all universities had to be compliant in pretty short order. I have a lot of problems with the new regs, but one of the impacts is that Title IX processes are now in favor of the Respondent (the accused party), as the investigative and hearing process is more complicated, and more like a courtroom setting, and will have the effect of deterring Complainants from coming forward. So depending on when this particular complaint occurred (before August 2020 or after), the process may be different. In any event, I would not have expected Boy to be suspended during the investigation unless there was some reasonable belief that his continued presence on campus posed a serious risk to himself, the Complainant, or the community. Generally speaking, we don't take punitive action against without finding them responsible for a policy violation first, which requires the investigation and then the hearing. There are often other accommodations that can be made during the investigation (such as rearranging schedules, temporarily and voluntarily moving someone if they are in a residence hall, and/or mutual no contact orders). For the sake of due process, the Complainant and the Respondent need to be treated fairly throughout the process, and hopefully not have either of their academic opportunities disrupted. So for him to be suspended during the investigation, there must have been some sort of valid concern that he was still a threat, and that decision was hopefully very heavily scrutinized. So, if he was found to not be responsible, I hope that he was immediately reinstated. The impact of his suspension very well could have harmed his academic pursuits. I would not expect the full investigation to go into his file, though. At my university, I know that in employee-related cases, the only thing that ever shows up in an employee's personnel file is a disciplinary letter only if the investigation results in a finding and it goes to hearing. My investigative reports are sent to the parties who need to know, but the report itself is typically not part of the file. I don't dig into student conduct files as often, but I believe that the only thing that ends up in the files where I work is the disposition (the final results) of the case, and not the investigative report itself. That report and the evidence is stored elsewhere. Boy should have the right to view his file, so maybe he should ask, to see what is in there. My school's policies do have provisions against knowingly providing false information at any part of the process. It is a violation of policy and can similarly be investigated and result in discipline. However, things like that are very hard to prove. If a complaint is made in good faith but the evidence is not sufficient to support it, that is not necessarily a false report. Proving that the report was knowingly false is very, very hard, and this complaint might even be construed to be retaliatory. Of course, retaliation is also a violation of policy. So I would guess that he could file a complaint himself, he would be hard pressed to have sufficient evidence to support it. That is always a possibility of course. In my investigations, I work really hard to treat all parties with respect, dignity, and empathy. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, they say. But that doesn't mean that the process won't be intimidating or just flat out suck for all of the people involved. But there are multiple levels in the process. A student complaint starts with resources and support services offered by a Deputy Title IX Coordinator, then it goes to an investigator if the allegations are serious enough, then if a hearing is appropriate the case goes to a hearing panel who makes the actual decisions in the case, and there are appeal processes for both the investigation and the hearing if there is an error along the way. If it still doesn't go well, the parties always have the right to file a lawsuit. So everyone involved has a strong interest in getting it right. Hell, I even once investigated a discrimination complaint against a Title IX investigator in our student conduct office across campus. The complainant accused the investigator of being an a$$hole, and racist to boot (which is why it came to me), so I carefully examined the investigative process that the other office used. There is always another step, and everyone who gets into this line of work has a strong sense of justice. But there has to be plenty of evidence in order to get anywhere.

Okay, but why is this a problem for you. What is the harm to you? Because if someone prefers to use this as part of their personal identity, we can cause harm by refusing to acknowledge it. By the way, there are plenty of alternative pronouns that have been created which are gender neutral, but lesser known. This would include (as opposed to she/her/hers): zie/zem/zis; or ve/ver/vis; or xe/xem/xyr. Are you saying you would be more comfortable using those pronouns? Because those or even more unusual! I get it, and I would also prefer if someone had a problem with me that they come to me directly. However, not everyone is going to feel empowered to do that, especially if there is a perceived disparity of power. If someone feels unsafe or uncomfortable (even if they are being hypersensitive, which honestly is often the case), it is not a good idea to have someone who feels marginalized to confront the person who makes them feel that way. The sort of conversations you are talking about with the union boss and the Dean, are conversations I have all the time at my job. People come to my office with complaints that they are feeling uncomfortable or feeling harassed. However, if someone says "you guys," that does not rise to harassment. However, I offer to engage in a conversation with the person to make them aware that they did something that made someone else uncomfortable. It's a matter of awareness and trying to prevent further issues. And if the other party was unintentional with their offense (which is usually the case), and they want to respect their coworkers and not cause further harm, they will make an adjustment in their interactions. These conversations are not disciplinary, even though sometimes people are taken aback that we are having the discussion in the first place. We can't tell someone what they can or can't be offended by. It doesn't mean that it rises to harassment, or that it is even reasonable. But if a comment is tied to someone's identity and makes them feel unsafe, then the person making the comment has a decision to make: we can choose to respect others and acknowledge their feelings, or we can push back because it is too inconvenient to learn something new. Again, it causes no harm to me to use more inclusive language. But if I refuse to do so, it can harm someone else, even if I may not completely understand it. Regarding the policy question, I still ask, for anyone reading this, to identify any specific policy that we can discuss:

This would be a pretty dumb thing to do:

I reffed intramural flag football one year in college, and I tell ya, those goddamn frat boys b!tch about everything.

I hope you have time to take a look at my questions a little later. I've asked about specific policy concerns a couple of times now. Don't rush on my account, but I am genuinely interested in your response. Bright Sheng at Michigan is an interesting case, but he wasn't fired. According to this article, https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/10/11/professor-not-teaching-after-blackface-‘othello’-showing: It looks like a move they made to save face and further public embarrassment. If I had to guess, there will probably not be any actual discipline in the case either. It's all PR (my opinion). If he were to be disciplined or fired for this, I would be stunned if such a decision would hold up to a legal challenge in the conservative 6th Circuit. The communication was not handled well, particularly the wording in the professor's apology. It was one of those "I'm sorry that you were offended" as opposed to simply saying "sorry" and acknowledging the mistake. Fun fact, Nebraska's former Title IX Coordinator is now at Michigan in a VP role, she oversees their Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX office. So there is only a couple of degrees of separation between UNL and the Bright Sheng case.

What "new policies"? You have yet to identify an actual company/university policy that you or her or her husband finds questionable. Earlier you said that she was one of your employees, and now you say that she was frustrated with "new company policies," so it would stand to reason if you are her manager that you would know what policies she might be talking about. And obviously it seems like you have concerns about these mysterious policies too. Let's make it easier: if you can't identify your own company policy that is causing so much consternation, then let's identify any policy that any reputable company, corporation, or university has (public universities typically post all of their policies online), that you feel is representative of cancel culture or is too woke. Then we can discuss what is unreasonable about these policies and how they can be changed. Is that fair? Language evolves, and sometimes it evolves rather quickly. Let's use psychiatric and disability language for example. Back in the day, doctors and psychologists used words like "idiot" and "imbecile" as actual medical terms. I think these words were even used in early versions of the DSM Manual (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me). Later, these words became commonly used as pejorative insults, so the language changed. For many years, the R-word was used instead. It became used in a derogatory way as well. So language evolved again, and we don't use the R-word anymore (unless you are intentionally being an a$$hole). Now think about the word "queer." That word has been used as a derogatory term for a hell of a long time, but has largely been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community (that's what the Q stands for) as an acceptable term, but the context regarding how the word is used still matters. Not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community likes that word, and it can still be triggering to some. And it can still be used inappropriately. With pronouns, the vernacular has changed really quickly, and it is hard to keep up. So when you mention "Pronouns or phrases they used for decades," let's talk about "they" as an example. You and I likely grew up using "they" as nothing more than a plural pronoun and not as someone's personal identity. It still feels weird to use "they" as a singular pronoun instead of "he or she." It doesn't sound like the proper English that we learned. But times have changed. Is there a reason to stubbornly dig your heels in and refuse to use "they" if that is what someone prefers? What harm does it do to you to learn to use a word a little bit differently? What harm does it do to the older man in your example to refer to professional women as "women" instead of "girls?" It does no harm at all to make that change, but using respectful language or using someone's preferred name or pronouns can show that you are making an effort at respecting them. Let's think critically about this a little bit further. In the business world, a "reprimand" is typically a disciplinary action, right? Does a union boss have the authority to discipline? Isn't the job of a union leader to look out for the fairness and just treatment of their fellow union members? Further, can you think of any real policy that would lead to someone being disciplined for mistakenly calling someone "girls"? Is it more likely that this was an educational conversation with the older gentleman? Now, if you said something that unintentionally offended someone else, wouldn't you want to know about it? What happens when that same older man makes a mistake in any other aspect of his job? Does he learn and improve, or does he just stop doing his job? Look, when we make mistakes (and we all make mistakes), we need to acknowledge the mistake, suck it up, and do better next time. That's not too much to ask. Again, let's think critically about this situation. There is a huge difference between a reprimand, and "huge trouble," versus a conversation with the Dean or more training. Hell, we all need more training, that is not a bad thing. And a conversation with the Dean is not a disciplinary action. Call it conjecture or call it critical thinking, but what do you think actually happened in this situation? Think about what is reasonable. Is this really what "cancel culture" is?

So we still don’t know what actual policies she is worried about, and we don’t know what “trouble” actually means here. What we do know is that he said something that was unintentionally offensive to someone else, it was brought to his attention, and now he has adjusted his communication so he does not offend that person anymore. Is that a bad thing?

Ok thanks. I’m going to make a comment and asks a question, and for context, I investigate harassment and discrimination complaints at a university. First of all, no one is going to get fired for saying “you guys.” No one would face discipline for that, either. In what kind of scenario would this actually happen? What kind of policy would mention pronouns and “easily get into trouble with misuse”? If you don’t know for sure (I wouldn’t expect you to know the policies of place where you don’t work), maybe we can discuss a reasonable scenario where someone would face disciplinary action for accidentally misusing a pronoun? I don’t think it would happen.

I’m interested in hearing more about this if you are able to share. What kind of policies was she taking exception to? What was the terminology used in the email? What kind of huge trouble did he get into?

When Benhart gets in the game, they should play "Jump For My Love" by the Pointer Sisters.

Looks like the conversation was successful derailed, beginning with a non sequiter about pronouns, and now we are talking about credit scores. I some of us aren't worried that someone actually proposed a law that bars educational discussions that include bias, white supremacy, equity, and multiculturalism...and the bill actually passed in a house vote? This is beyond horrific.

I'm a bit of a beer snob myself, and I think Yuengling sucks! I prefer darker beers, and their Black and Tan is decent, but there are so many better beers out there so it is never even on my list. Now, I am curious about the Hershey beer because I do enjoy a chocolate stout. Yuengling is sold in my neck of the woods, so I may consider it if I see it, simply due to the novelty of it. But since it is fall and there are so many great beers available this time of year, I'm pretty likely to bypass the Yuengling altogether.

Does every individual have an opportunity to succeed? Of course. Does everyone have the same opportunities to succeed? No they don't. Do different people face different circumstances based on historical discrimination and the still-existing by-products of those historical inequities, which results in some people starting with advantages and others starting with disadvantages? Undoubtedly. Have many of those circumstances been based on upon race? Yes! It's both. Minimizing or ignoring the racial divides in this country does nothing to help the SES divides, and the issues are frequently intertwined.

Do you actually believe that the injustices against black people in the past no longer have any bearing on black people today? Do you think it is all a level playing field now? Why do you think this?

Trying to cash in on Tom Osborne's popularity...as an 84 year old, 23 years after he retired, and with the program he took care of for decades at an all time low.

Drive. Watch the opening scene here (can't get it to embed). Very little dialogue but it will get your adrenaline flowing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHYaj6EHfJg

Ha, that reminds me of this:

I tend to think that fictional characters can be subject to any sort of re-imagining a writer or director wants...I mean they are fictional, right? The Marvel universe took several characters who were originally white and/or male and recast them with people of different races/ethnicities/genders. Generally not a big deal. But some characters honestly hit a little differently, especially if they are as ingrained in popular culture as Bond is. A big part of the James Bond character is his white maleness, and while in the 60s and 70s this was a heroic macho feature, in the last couple of decades, the writers have been able to use 007's white male privilege to portray him as a more complex and flawed character. Bond's interactions with a strong female M would certainly not have worked with a female Bond. And they have added more diversity to the cast in recent films (Felix, Moneypenny, more diverse villains, more diverse and more powerful "Bond girls"). It is possible to use Bond's whiteness and his masculinity to tell an engaging story that can still feature diversity and use those elements to expose his flaws and his privilege. I am all about championing diversity, and more diversity in Hollywood is certainly a good thing...but turning James Bond into a black character or a female character just because...would be pretty lazy.

So, if you believe that he is never going to fix the sloppy play, and you believe he will never challenge for division or conference titles, what is the purpose of giving him more time? What does that accomplish?

Lining up for the potential game winning FG, a 30 yard chip shot between the hashes. Snap is good, kick is good, but we didn't beat the play clock (coming out of a timeout no less). Delay of game, 5 yards. So now a 35 yard FG, still a chip shot. Snap is good, kick is good, but wait! False start before the snap. 5 more yards. So now a 40 yard FG, still very doable. Snap is good, kick is good, but wait! Holding penalty. 10 more yards. So now a 50 yard FG, more difficult but we were hitting them in warm-ups earlier. Snap is good, kick is good, but wait! Defense jumps offsides! But after the defender crossed the line, the guard grabs a facemask and takes the guy down. Benches clear. In the ensuing melee, Nebraska is called for two more personal fouls. Refs ultimately spot the ball on our own 28. We end up punting, but the snap bounces off the punter's face mask.