Ulty

"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted. Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text...does it capture the spirit and lessons in the same way? I have no idea. If you are arguing that there are different and better ways to teach the content...you are right. That is a question of pedagogy. But if this were merely an issue of pedagogy, we wouldn't be talking about removing books, firing teachers, and pretending that 8th grade curiosity of sex is offensive. And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction? You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria?

"Let Me Clear My Throat" makes sense for Nebraska because we have been sucking for so long...

Sounds like thoughtful, responsible teaching. That is also very different than banning the book, firing teachers, or pretending that a teenager's curiosity about sex is pornographic or a depiction of molestation.

I mean, you were just talking about "relevant context" one post earlier. This was a single page from the diary of a teenage girl, with much more important historical context overall, while also being relevant to the thoughts and feelings of the middle school students who were reading this. You posted a link that said that falsely said this was a "depiction of molestation." That kind of hysteria leads to books getting banned and teachers getting fired. The statement from the school district sounds like something that Goebbels himself might have written. What else do kids in middle school read as part of the approved curriculum? Violence, sex, drugs, murder, and politics are often central themes, and kids of that age are able and ready to explore those things. Especially from something as historically important as the Diary of Anne Frank. This is Anne Frank, no one sees the irony here? So here's the lesson plan: we should read books instead of banning them.

It was an 8th grade class. And for bonus points, do you know how old the author was?

In the tweet Archy posted above, this is the picture that was linked to the "depiction of molestation": The horror!!!

"relevant context"? You might need to explain. This community note in itself is little more than dishonest hysteria. "Depiction of molestation"? Really? Do you support firing a teacher for reading this with her middle school class? This is one of the best known books, ever, about an extremely important topic, adapted into a graphic novel format.

I didn't even think about this until now, but Frank Solich's first game as head coach was at home against Louisiana Tech. His final game as HC of NU was on the road against Colorado, both of which happened again this year. Is the game this weekend yet another element of breaking the Solich curse?

Running speed and throwing distance don't really matter if the QB can't reliably receive the snap without putting it on the turf.

This kind of stuff interests me, so I clicked on the article: here is a link to the actual lawsuit. I've always thought Kiffin was a douchenozzle, but this lawsuit sounds like a nothingburger. Don't expect anything to come from this.

I hear a lot of people say this. I sure do miss winning championships, I remember what that was like. But no one ever says they grew up during a time when Iowa was good...because it's never happened. But since you said this, that must mean that you are a grown a$$ man. Yet you troll other teams' message boards, act like a child, and have difficulty stringing together complete sentences? Have a little dignity, man.

How does this help Tucker?

of course, and your "ifs" were perfectly valid hypotheticals to be curious about. But they did not even match Tucker's own claims. Just adding some additional thoughts to the scenario.

If that is true, that means there were at least 20 opportunities for him to realize, and act upon the fact that, in his situation at MSU, under NO circumstances, none whatsoever, should he pursue anything sexual, not even flirting, with this person. I posted a Choose Your Own Adventure scenario in the Michigan State thread. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This is possible. If so, I have a couple of conflicting thoughts on this. First of all, these processes can be slow, and it is not unusual for parties to become frustrated. Sometimes the pace, and the due process that necessitates that pace, can make it appear to a party that nothing is happening. Further, this woman has been through complaints and investigations in the past that did not go anywhere (that is why she does what she does now), so she likely also has a traumatic response to this kind of situation. On the other hand, given her experience and knowledge, I would also expect her to understand better than most how these processes work (a slow investigation which is not even supposed to render a conclusion, which then leads to a hearing). I'm not quite clear on how this first came to USA Today's attention. Did the Complainant take it public first? If that is the case, I'm not sure why she would do that unless she herself had problems with how MSU was handling it. That would not be surprising, since MSU has famously mishandled these issues before. But if that is the case, then both parties are unhappy with the process (which is also not unusual).

He never even claimed this. He said they had a "personal relationship." Nowhere did he say they previously had a sexual relationship. And even for the sake of argument, being okay with messing around in the past does not imply consent to mess around in the future. Regarding the photo, his statement said: If she suggested what she MAY look like without clothes, that implies that this photo was clothed. What does "provocative" mean? Why did she send it (if true)? We don't know this yet, this will be interesting. If he never got the opportunity to provide evidence during the investigation, yes that would be a sham. But according to MSU's statement, the parties had a chance to review the investigative report in July (which is a typical part of the Title IX process). So if he actually did have a chance to review, he also would have had a chance to respond.

There was an investigation, and now it's going to hearing. From the article you posted:

Did he provide these "receipts" during the investigation? If so, the hearing and eventual conclusion should be interesting. But if he had sufficient evidence to exonerate himself, I'm guessing he would not be making public statements about the investigation being unfair and the upcoming hearing being a "sham." I could be wrong, but it rarely works in your favor to lash out the way he is. Tucker clearly did something incredibly stupid and unprofessional. Whether it meets the policy definition of sexual harassment remains to be seen, but either way he is a dumbass.

Let's play "Choose Your Own Adventure." Remember those books? You work for a school that is still reeling from one of the worst sexual misconduct scandals ever. You hire a nationally known woman, a sexual assault survivor, to speak to your team about preventing sexual misconduct. You are still married. Do you decide to: A: Thank this woman for providing educational services to your team, maintain strictly professional contact, and focus on coaching your team? Turn to page 95. or B: Try to have phone sex with this woman and have her listen to you masturbate? Turn to page 144. How would any reasonable person expect this story to end?

Maybe, maybe not. If he has the evidence, he should have provided it during the investigation. If so, it would be reviewed during the hearing and the hearing officer would weigh it out. But the hearing is not the place to provide new evidence, if he did not provide it during the investigation, why not? And additionally, a "provocative picture" would not necessarily mean she consented to phone sex and masturbation at a later time. Even if they did have a sexual relationship in the past (which is not what he is saying, unless I misread something), that also does not necessarily imply future consent for all other acts. But it certainly adds more intrigue and complexity to the matter. It's still an absolutely dumb situation for him to get himself into.

It's in the ballpark, but this is more of a technicality than anything. Let me help. In 2020, the Dept of Ed narrowed the Title IX definition of sexual harassment. In typical harassment cases, the threshold has always been that the unwelcome conduct must be severe OR pervasive. However, in 2020, the Title IX definition changed sexual harassment to severe AND pervasive AND objectively offensive. Quite honestly, that threshold of evidence is almost impossible to reach. So in response to the new Title IX regulations, most schools adopted the Title IX definitions (because they were required to) but also kept the old definitions as a separate policy violation (because otherwise it would be much more difficult to address sexual misconduct on campus). If it sounds confusing, it is. So I would guess that in this particular case, the allegations did not rise to the Title IX definition of harassment (it was probably severe but not pervasive), so the charges would have been under MSU's non-Title IX definition of sexual harassment. It probably still follows the same investigation and hearing process, but they technically do not call it Title IX. It's still sexual harassment. Well, she made a harassment complaint...do you think they should not investigate? Hell yes, MSU wants to "avoid any Nasser taint." That's part of what is so baffling: this guy works for MSU, surely knowing damn well the kind of heavy sexual misconduct baggage that exists at that school, and he decides that it will be okay to jerk off on the phone with a sexual assault educator. The "Nasser taint" overshadows anything that happens at that school, and this is one of the dumbest things that someone could possibly do. And further, for him to bring up his own race and gender in a statement like this, is an extraordinary claim that would require some extraordinary evidence.

So...all summer leading up to this game, the majority of Huskerboarders, sportswriters, bookies, and everyone else predicted that Nebraska would likely lose this game. Most predicted that we would have trouble scoring points. Most predicted that it would take some time to clean up the turnover problems that have plagued us for years. We all know what Rhule's year 1 has looked like. Most predicted that, despite losing to Minnesota, we would still be bowl eligible at the end of the season. So now that the game went almost exactly as most people predicted, the sky is falling? After all we have seen the past few years, you babies should have a thicker shell than this. I think the problem is, we've seen this same game dozens of times under Riley and Frost, and they never were able to fix it. Maybe Rhule can, or maybe not, but it's too soon to tell. I don't think that anything in the last 24 hours should have changed our expectations or predictions, and look, the next 3 games are very winnable.

I don't remember the kicker wearing stripes that night.

Eavesdropping on a very intellectual conversation at the coffee shop this morning: a few old guys are arguing that the charges against Trump are not valid because any plan to throw out the results of the election would be so stupid that Republicans would not have fallen for it.

This is a fair point, what is unethical and slimy is not necessary illegal. But in Clarence Thomas' case, there has been tons of evidence showing unethical/corrupt actions and/or conflict of interest, underscoring the need for clear standards of ethics and conduct for SCOTUS that they have refused to consider. In Joe Biden's case, the evidence has shown jack squat against Joe himself.