huggs, goodness ...

[AlOerter]

Good post pdub.

[surly]

huggs in sensitivity training, can you imagine?

https://twitter.com/petethamel/status/1 ... GL7-yPIvRQ

[jfish26]

"Kowtowing to Huggins’s clout and cachet would send a signal that West Virginia cares more about him than those he marginalized by speaking his closed mind."

This isn't 0's and 1's absolute here though.
Not firing him doesn't mean that WVU doesn't care about those he marginalized.
That isn't the only course of action here.

The ultimatums of, "this person is either fired or that means everyone in the organization is terrible/racist/sexist/homophobic" is meh-tastic.

It's also meh-tastic if simply talking about this without the standard full agreement is raising alarms to label or infer that I ( or others who aren't fully on bored with the only course of action is firing ) believe what Huggins did wasn't wrong.

What's giving me trouble here is that I think the situation actually is fairly binary. You DO fire him, or you DON'T fire him.

I acknowledge that there are all sorts of fig leaves you can add to NOT firing him (sensitivity training; community outreach; on and on). But those are window dressing, and everyone knows that.

Huggins didn't make a mistake. It wasn't a slip of the tongue. While his tone wasn't malicious, the casualness of the remarks speak to that just being Huggins.

So what he brings on the basketball court is worth giving him a pass, or it's not. I don't think there's really much in the way of gray area.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

huggs in sensitivity training, can you imagine?

https://twitter.com/petethamel/status/1 ... GL7-yPIvRQ

I swear I was thinking this morning that the delay in the school NOT announcing the decision/s from their "meeting" can only mean they are not going to fire him. Makes sense they have "negotiated" with him (and I assume his attorney/s.

[pdub]

"What's giving me trouble here is that I think the situation actually is fairly binary. You DO fire him, or you DON'T fire him."

Or you suspend him. Or fine him. Or force him to community service for a LGBT cause. Or have him speak to the LGBT community. And that is what they are doing.

Unless the scenario is set up as "Do they fire him or not," in which those are the only parameters of your scenario ( i.e. in a vacuum ), while fully well acknowledging there are many other actions, than it is absolutely not binary ( to me ).
Calling them 'fig leaves' is meh-tastic ( also to me ).

Also, you being a lawyer, I don't see how you can have the above opinion.

[jfish26]

"What's giving me trouble here is that I think the situation actually is fairly binary. You DO fire him, or you DON'T fire him."

Or you suspend him. Or fine him. Or force him to community service for a LGBT cause. Or have him speak to the LGBT community. And that is what they are doing.

Unless the scenario is set up as "Do they fire him or not," in which those are the only parameters while fully well acknowledging there are many other actions, than it is absolutely not binary ( to me ).
Calling them 'fig leaves' is meh-tastic ( also to me ).

I'm just not sure what any of these in-between measures accomplish, other than performative box-checking. That's fig-leaf stuff.

[pdub]

"This guy ran a stop sign and ended up crashing into a car and killed someone."

"OK, so let's look at the min/max here. Alright, we got 1 year in jail or 30. Anything in between isn't gonna work for me. Checkin' boxes. Fig-leaf stuff."

[jfish26]

"This guy ran a stop sign and ended up crashing into a car and killed someone."

"OK, so let's look at the min/max here. Alright, we got 1 year in jail or 30. Anything in between isn't gonna work for me. Checkin' boxes. Fig-leaf stuff."

That's...just not remotely close to the situation here, though! This isn't a behavior that needs to be changed (through punishment). This is something fundamental to the guy's character. He might not say "fag" on the radio again if this costs him a million bucks...but that's still who he'll be.

So, if you keep him...you're keeping him. It's just the choice you'd be making, and it's the choice you'd have to own. Sensitivity training, speaking engagements, fines...none of those things change what you'd be saying, out loud, by keeping him.

[Back2Lawrence]

This isn't 0's and 1's absolute here though.

Some definite irony that this gets made into a binary choice.

[pdub]

"This guy ran a stop sign and ended up crashing into a car and killed someone."

"OK, so let's look at the min/max here. Alright, we got 1 year in jail or 30. Anything in between isn't gonna work for me. Checkin' boxes. Fig-leaf stuff."

That's...just not remotely close to the situation here, though! This isn't a behavior that needs to be changed (through punishment). This is something fundamental to the guy's character. He might not say "fag" on the radio again if this costs him a million bucks...but that's still who he'll be.

Got Judge JFish Dredd up here makin' absolute calls.
And it absolutely is a behavior that can be changed.

Also, what if the guy driving the car was fundamentally reckless? Or fundamentally a good person who just made one horrible decision?

[Back2Lawrence]

The problem I see with Fish’s assertion is that it seems to insinuate that he’s behave because he would want to protect his money.

Does that mean that less affluent people would be able to change ‘who they are’ more purely as they wouldn’t have a secondary motive? Or the opposite?

I get the argument, it’s just so cynical and bullshit, IMO. I’m 50, we used fag and many other words when I was in my teens/20s that are long gone from my vernacular. It’s a gross opinion to assume people can’t figure out that they are indeed gross. It’s also weird, from the open-minded (allegedly) side of the argument.

He sucks. But he doesn’t get a chance to try to figure it out and make amends demonstrating so? Eeek.

[jfish26]

"This guy ran a stop sign and ended up crashing into a car and killed someone."

"OK, so let's look at the min/max here. Alright, we got 1 year in jail or 30. Anything in between isn't gonna work for me. Checkin' boxes. Fig-leaf stuff."

That's...just not remotely close to the situation here, though! This isn't a behavior that needs to be changed (through punishment). This is something fundamental to the guy's character. He might not say "fag" on the radio again if this costs him a million bucks...but that's still who he'll be.

Got Judge JFish Dredd up here makin' absolute calls.
And it absolutely is a behavior that can be changed.

Also, what if the guy driving the car was fundamentally reckless? Or fundamentally a good person who just made one horrible decision?

I guess we just don’t agree on what the university’s response is even supposed to accomplish.

You seem to care about making sure Huggins doesn’t say “fags” on the radio again. Ok, maybe that’s achievable.

But I see it a little more broadly. To me, Huggins’ words and tone revealed his character and principles. And the university’s response will reveal its character and principles.

Choosing to keep him around simply DOES mean that, in light of what he brings to the table, you are ok with bigotry so long as it stays off the radio.

That might be a defensible choice, even a reasonable one. But you don’t get a free pass on what that choice MEANS, simply because you get him to agree to monthly coffee and donuts meetings for a year.

[pdub]

What B2L said.

[pdub]

You seem to care about making sure Huggins doesn’t say “fags” on the radio again.
Choosing to keep him around simply DOES mean that, in light of what he brings to the table, you are ok with bigotry so long as it stays off the radio.

No.
Meh-tastic to the maximum.
Wildly, brazenly meh-tastic.

Bizarrely absolutist.

[Back2Lawrence]

How can one make the assessment from one incident that this is his character and principles?

That’s fucking gross.

Does huggy have a history of this nonsense? I don’t know.

I personally don’t really like him and have never followed his teams/accomplishments/etc.

[jfish26]

The problem I see with Fish’s assertion is that it seems to insinuate that he’s behave because he would want to protect his money.

Does that mean that less affluent people would be able to change ‘who they are’ more purely as they wouldn’t have a secondary motive? Or the opposite?

I get the argument, it’s just so cynical and bullshit, IMO. I’m 50, we used fag and many other words when I was in my teens/20s that are long gone from my vernacular. It’s a gross opinion to assume people can’t figure out that they are indeed gross. It’s also weird, from the open-minded (allegedly) side of the argument.

He sucks. But he doesn’t get a chance to try to figure it out and make amends demonstrating so? Eeek.

He can make amends, or even change his heart, whether or not he’s the basketball coach at WVU. All I’m saying is that, to me, no amount of additional stuff changes what the university would be saying about itself by keeping him. They’re saying the juice is worth the squeeze.

Which is fine - they should just have to own that, though. Not hide behind other stuff.

[KUTradition]

Choosing to keep him around simply DOES mean that, in light of what he brings to the table, you are ok with bigotry so long as it stays off the radio

i agree with this, and am not at all surprised with w i’d response

[Back2Lawrence]

This is same crap that’s wrong with our political party system, fish. Either with or it against us.

Why not hold accountable and give shot at change without cancelling his livelihood?

[pdub]

You can both be not ok with bigotry and also not fire him.
That is very much possible.

[jfish26]

How can one make the assessment from one incident that this is his character and principles?

That’s fucking gross.

Does huggy have a history of this nonsense? I don’t know.

I personally don’t really like him and have never followed his teams/accomplishments/etc.

Feel like I’m in bizarro-land here. This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It wasn’t a private remark. It’s not something taken out of context.

If you say what he said, when he said it, where he said it, how he said it…then I think people can very reasonably determine that that just IS who you are. At best, you ARE someone comfortable with saying “fags” twice in 2023, knowing you’re on the radio.

Does that mean you should be shot into the sun, or jailed? Of course not. Does that mean you must be fired? No, not even that!

But if the university doesn’t fire him, then it just have to own what that says about the university’s values.