Mike Haywood was fired today, just weeks after being named head football coach of the University of Pittsburgh, shortly after he was released from an Indiana jail after being charged with domestic battery. The University issued a statement that is problematic:
"After careful consideration of recent events, the University of Pittsburgh has dismissed Michael Haywood as its head football coach, effective immediately. He was advised of that action this afternoon.
"To be clear, the University's decision is not tied to any expectation with respect to the terms on which the legal proceeding now pending in Indiana might ultimately be concluded. Instead, it reflects a strong belief that moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances.
"This is a matter of real regret for the many people at Pitt who had looked forward to working with him. However, head coaches are among the University's most visible representatives and are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."
It is understandable that "moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances." An accusation of this nature will be a major distraction for Haywood, and there is a possibility he will be incarcerated for this charge.
The problematic aspect of the statement is this: ". . . head coaches . . . are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."
You see the problem. Unless the university knows something the rest of us don't know, what if the accuser lied? What if the now ex-coach did maintain high standards of conduct? And what if he couldn't avoid this situation?
You see, that's the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Something smells fishy about this case.
Unfortunately, this is typical of both college and professional sports, and I could cite dozens of recent examples where athletes were suspended or expelled based on mere accusation. The coach of the Duke lacrosse team was fired even though he wasn't one of the ones accused. Where there's smoke, they're fired.
Protocol Shame 101
Universities especially are far more concerned about image that anything else, least of all the equality and fairness they give great PR lip service about.
The greatest cowards I've ever observed are in Universities, no wonder given they are indoctrinated into peer-reviewed, political corrected blindness which now has become ironically anything but equality nor fairness but rather a tyrannical hell for anyone who is different than the double-standardized University protocol of a superficial false-image over a working reality.
Maybe the univerisity of pittsburg has their own little "Group of 88" gender feminists.
Smells like a setup to me: she knew he was getting a huge raise and threatened to withhold access to his son unless he paid up. Paternal extortion. Seems plain as day.
Ironically she appears to have slain the golden calf before it ever gave milk.
Poor bastard: even if he did grab hold of her i don't think he deserved all this.
Sure does make Pitt look stupid though and that's just fine by me.
A couple of interesting questions to consider: "Did he have a contract?" "Did it have a 'morals clause' that would allow the univerity to terminate it?" "If there was a morals clause, does mere accusation rather than conviction satisfy the requirements to allow termination?" and lastly, "How much money can he sue U Pitt for if he's tried and acquitted?"
How did Gender / Raunch feminism become such a powerful force in America??
Post a Comment