Ernest Jones resigns | Page 13 | The Boneyard

Ernest Jones resigns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carl Spackler said:
What does that have to do with anything being discussed? You have no idea what I may or may not have been persecuted for, by simply having the birth parents I had, and regardless, it has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
Expand ...
Being a minority has nothing to do with this? I'm not sure I agree.
 
doggydaddy said:
Well, it appears to me he has no empathy for the probable 2000-4000 Jewish ticket season holders because the game was scheduled without consideration that it would prevent them from attending the game.

Being one of them, I commend the school for trying although the 7:30 start doesn't help most of them. Sunset was at 7:05, I believe. Puts a crimp in spending time with the family. If you go to services in the evening, you would miss the first quarter if not more.

I'm sorry if it put him out. I get put out all the time for things that have nothing to do with my religion. Welcome to my world,
Expand ...

Well, I think you're blinded by some kind of persecution complex, because I've been clear that although it was an inconvenience for me, I wasn't particularly bothered by it at the time, and understood it and I've stated that elsewhere, as it's part of our cultural environment. I'm not particularly bothered by it now either, and am just using that scheduling change to indicate that there might just be a bit of hypocrisy there at the school. I think there is actual measurable negative consequence too, as to what happened with the broadcast reach of that game being moved, as opposed to anything measureable that Coach Jones did, that initiated a public response from the university president.

I do think, it's a fabrication to think that the game was going to be significantly impacted financially if it was played in daylight.

What Coach Jones did, was overstep his bounds verbally, in his job position. Without a doubt, and it needed to be addressed within the university. But he hadn't actually done anything illegal, and he certainly hadn't acted in any way (yet) to favor a certain religion over others while performing his job. Certainly nothing warranting a public statement from the university. It had nothing to do with the establishment clause, and the coach, hadn't even been interacting with players in any meaningful way yet.
 
Marty Jackson said:
explain what religious holiday was celebrated by Christians on Sept. 14th?
The decision by Uconn was based on actual facts. I would think if there were a conflict, Uconn would have taken a different approach.

But let's not let facts get in the way of going off the deep end.
Expand ...


The game was changed without a hitch, because nobody complained loud enough. Whatever the reasons for complaining, are pretty much irrelevant - it seems in our current day and age.
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
Oh please. He said nothing of the sort. The only other relevant part of your post is that moving the game really didn't allow Jews to attend if you followed the rules of the holiday as they're celebrated anyway.
Expand ...
No? It's clear he felt the game shouldn't have been moved. Looks like he has no empathy for the many Jewish ticket holders that couldn't attend.

It's not relevant that I couldn't go to the game? It was to me. I was pissed the game was scheduled on that day at all.

He also put the folks who couldn't get ESPN3 ahead of ticket holders. That is BS to me.

Reading his and your posts, something tells me you are in the religious majority.
 
Carl Spackler said:
Well, I think you're blinded by some kind of persecution complex, because I've been clear that although it was an inconvenience for me, I wasn't particularly bothered by it at the time, and understood it and I've stated that elsewhere, as it's part of our cultural environment. I'm not particularly bothered by it now either, and am just using that scheduling change to indicate that there might just be a bit of hypocrisy there at the school. I think there is actual measurable negative consequence too, as to what happened with the broadcast reach of that game being moved, as opposed to anything measureable that Coach Jones did, that initiated a public response from the university president.

I do think, it's a fabrication to think that the game was going to be significantly impacted financially if it was played in daylight.

What Coach Jones did, was overstep his bounds verbally, in his job position. Without a doubt, and it needed to be addressed within the university. But he hadn't actually done anything illegal, and he certainly hadn't acted in any way (yet) to favor a certain religion over others while performing his job. Certainly nothing warranting a public statement from the university. It had nothing to do with the establishment clause, and the coach, hadn't even been interacting with players in any meaningful way yet.
Expand ...
And once again Mr. Obvious, that is your OPINION. Nothing more. My opinion was that a clarification (not a rebuke) from SH was the right thing to do. If that is truly the reason he chose to leave, then all I can do is say "good luck". Let's just stop dragging down UConn over this.
 
doggydaddy said:
No? It's clear he felt the game shouldn't have been moved. Looks like he has no empathy for the many Jewish ticket holders that couldn't attend.

It's not relevant that I couldn't go to the game? It was to me. I was pissed the game was scheduled on that day at all.

He also put the folks who couldn't get ESPN3 ahead of ticket holders. That is BS to me.

Reading his and your posts, something tells me you are in the religious majority.
Expand ...

That is really funny, because when it comes to religious beliefs, you couldn't be more wrong about Jimmy and I.
 
.-.
Carl Spackler said:
Well, I think you're blinded by some kind of persecution complex, because I've been clear that although it was an inconvenience for me, I wasn't particularly bothered by it at the time, and understood it and I've stated that elsewhere, as it's part of our cultural environment. I'm not particularly bothered by it now either, and am just using that scheduling change to indicate that there might just be a bit of hypocrisy there at the school. I think there is actual measurable negative consequence too, as to what happened with the broadcast reach of that game being moved, as opposed to anything measureable that Coach Jones did, that initiated a public response from the university president.

I do think, it's a fabrication to think that the game was going to be significantly impacted financially if it was played in daylight.

What Coach Jones did, was overstep his bounds verbally, in his job position. Without a doubt, and it needed to be addressed within the university. But he hadn't actually done anything illegal, and he certainly hadn't acted in any way (yet) to favor a certain religion over others while performing his job. Certainly nothing warranting a public statement from the university. It had nothing to do with the establishment clause, and the coach, hadn't even been interacting with players in any meaningful way yet.
Expand ...

It warranted a public statement from the university because Jones' unfortunate error was made in public in an official role as part of his job. Even if he said the same thing in a team meeting, for instance, I'll bet Diaco or Manuel would have pulled him aside and said, "Ernie, remember that you are not at ND any more. That is overstepping our bounds at a public university." A couple of corrective comments to the team and it would have been successfully handled internally. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enough when the original quote was to a news reporter interviewing a coach about his perception of his job responsibilities.
 
kibblesnbits said:
It warranted a public statement from the university because Jones' unfortunate error was made in public in an official role as part of his job. Had he said the same thing in a team meeting, for instance, I'll bet Diaco or Manuel would have pulled him aside and said, "Ernie, remember that you are not at ND any more. That is overstepping our bounds at a public university." Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enough when the original quote was to a news reporter interviewing a coach about his perception of his job responsibilities.
Expand ...

I'll say this one last time before somebody accuses me of being anti-Semitic, anti- ant-baby seals, etc...

IN MY OPINION: President Herbst should have left this alone in the media, the situation handled internally, and I do agree that a public statement was necessary, but it should have come from the coach himself who should have corrected his statements in the press. IN MY OPINION, choosing to respond to this thing in the press was a mistake, and contradicts her own support of the university to change scheduling arrangement for the same sport - football, to accommodate a particular religion. I further opine, that in making that schedule change, it caused potential negative consequence to the broadcasting reach of our home football game, and by extension potential revenue streams.

What religions are involved, to me, are irrelevant.

I wish Coach Jones the best wherever he goes, and I want us to line up in the huddle in the fall, get the play calls, and go out in formation and kick our opponent's ass, and if Jesus is there, or Allah, or Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, I don't care. Much like Crom, if he or she doesn't answer my prayers, to hell with them, we should do it ourselves.

I'm sure that reference will probably get somebody worked up too, although it's just a movie.

Peace out.

and for whaler....wouldn't you rather it had been more boobies?
 
"Accommodating a religion" does not equal "Advocating a religion."

One is a very appropriate thing to do at any institution, public or private, while the other is not appropriate at a public institution (or non-sectarian private one for that matter) in public statements by staff acting in an official capacity.

I do agree that the ideal response would have been a clarification by the coach, but that would have had to occur right away - before people reasonably questioned whether such public statements were sanctioned by the university. Perhaps Diaco or Manuel should have acted sooner (as in having the Courant publish the coach's correction the next day) and could have headed this off, but once it was in public debate, it really required a policy response from the school. That's 20/20 hindsight, however, that doesn't take into account all that was happening at the same time (getting the new staff up and running, relaunching recruiting, etc.).
 
"We are, of course, obliged to respect the other fellow's religions opinions, but only in the same sense and to the same extent that we respect his opinion that his wife is beautiful and his kids smart." H.L. Mencken
 
.-.
Carl Spackler said:
The game was changed without a hitch, because nobody complained loud enough. Whatever the reasons for complaining, are pretty much irrelevant - it seems in our current day and age.
Expand ...
Exactly... so why are you making the point now?
 
Wow. Just opened the thread on my phone and saw 26 pages. Lol.

Can someone give me the TL/DR cutdown?
 
to sum up spackler and serrano, everything would be better if everyone were christian. All these nuisances would just go away..
 
.-.
Marty Jackson said:
to sum up spackler and serrano, everything would be better if everyone were christian. All these nuisances would just go away..
Expand ...

You can keep up the demogouging all you want. I've stated repeatedly that I believe in no God. I pretty much think organized religion in all forms is pretty much a joke.
 
J187Money said:
Wow. Just opened the thread on my phone and saw 26 pages. Lol.

Can someone give me the TL/DR cutdown?
Expand ...
We are in the final stages of proving beyond all doubt that religion is best not discussed as the discussion of it causes division.
 
There is always the possibility Jones resigned because he truly believes in the quote that started this controversy.

He appears to be a good man. Better than most. Good luck to him.
 
temery said:
There is always the possibility Jones resigned because he truly believes in the quote that started this controversy.

He appears to be a good man. Better than most. Good luck to him.
Expand ...

Possibility? That's exactly all that is going on here.

A very religious man didn't want to work at an especially secular institution.

The idea that has sort of bubbled up about Christians being discriminated against... yikes.

From the you can't win files - UConn moves the Maryland game and one guy is still annoyed because they didn't move it far enough.

For all two million posts on conference realignment around here, one might note they moved the game not just to accommodate UConn fans but for Maryland fans as well.
 
.-.
Statement From UConn President Susan Herbst: “At public universities we value everyone in our community, and treat each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of who they are, what their background is, or what their beliefs may be. Every student, including student-athletes, must know they are accepted and welcomed at UConn. Always. Our staff should educate and guide students, to ensure they are well-prepared for life at UConn and beyond. But it should go without saying that our employees cannot appear to endorse or advocate for a particular religion or spiritual philosophy as part of their work at the university, or in their interactions with our students. This applies to work-related activity anywhere on or off campus, including on the football field. Our Athletic Director and Coach Diaco agree wholeheartedly with me, and have made this clear to their staff.”

http://courantblogs.com/uconn-football/uconn-president-susan-herbst-on-respecting-all-religions/

Moving a scheduled football game, to accomodate a particular religions, which gives the "appearance of endorsing" a particular religion is in direct violation of this statement. Not only that, doing that, resulted in the game being put on a less accessible broadcasting platform, and thus did not reach as many people as could have been reached through broadcasting (which I've since become 100% sure about).

That's all I'm saying. I don't really care about what religions are what. If you're going to proclaim it publicly, be consistent.
 
Carl Spackler said:
That's all I'm saying. I don't really care about what religions are what. If you're going to proclaim it publicly, be consistent.
Expand ...

And what you're saying is wrong. Accommodation is not endorsement.
 
Excalibur said:
And what you're saying is wrong. Accommodation is not endorsement.
Expand ...

I completely disagree. There are some similarities and differences between the two situations I discuss. The similarity is that neither circumstance was a violation of the establishment clause. The difference, is in the way the university handled the situations publicly, and the public reactions. I'm talking about Coach Jones' statement in the press, and the request by the university officials to schedule a football game after sunset on Yom Kippur.

One instance has nothing to do with the establishment clause, in that the person had not actually done anything except make a verbal statement. He did not actually interact with players, and he did not actually act in any way advocating a particular religion other than to make a statement, which could have been easily redacted publicly on his own and corrected/monitored behind closed doors.

In formally requesting that the American Conference schedule a UCONN home football game to accomodate a particular religion, the university officials most definitely did act in a way that "appears to endorse" a particular religion - as stated by president Herbst in her public statements about Coach Jones. The esteemed businesslawyer has stated that there is no precedent that such scheduling action is in direct violation of the establishment clause, so in this instance as well, the university did nothing wrong, and there was no violation, just as Coach Jones was not in violation. Coach Jones had the potential to be in violation, and there was no reason to think that it would not be handled by university officials within normal functioning and monitoring.

The difference between the two situations was simple - complaints, and the university public response.

Culturally, there was no reason for a guy like me to complain that the game was moved, at the time, becuase contrary to what the clearly ignorant responses on this thread to me have been, I'm actually quite respectful of other people's religious beliefs. It's good when people can realize humor in life, and my comments about certain religions (both Christianity and Judaism) have been light. The only reason I bring it up now, is to point out inconsistency and perhaps hypocrisy - which is a strong word - but definitely inconsistency.

But culturally, in CT, there were complaints to what Coach Jones said, and how it was handled in the media, by the university was completely unnecessary, and borderline inappropriate IMO, because of the conflict that is evident in the statement, based on the situation around the Maryland v. UCONN home game scheduling.

I knew that this subject matter would bring out strong responses. No doubt about it - that's why I would have preferred talkign about sweater puppies.

The reality here, is that a good man, Coach Jones, who is just trying to make a living for himself and support his family as a football coach, felt the need to leave a secure job, at a very inopportune time of year for football coaches to change jobs, and left the university, for whatever reasons, and it's hard to imagine that the backlash, and public scrutiny he was put under by his superiors was a big part of it, when he could have simply handled the situation himself publicly.

Everyone makes mistakes, and I think Susan Herbst made a mistake here in handling this situation, and it's not a reach for me, to believe that a good guy has left the football program because of it, contrary to what her public statement says about tolerance.

You learn, live and move on. I swear on what I believe, and I do believe in a power in the universe that is totally beyond our comprehension, that we interact with, and effects us every day in our daily life, that I will not comment on this again.
 
Carl Spackler said:
Statement From UConn President Susan Herbst: “At public universities we value everyone in our community, and treat each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of who they are, what their background is, or what their beliefs may be. Every student, including student-athletes, must know they are accepted and welcomed at UConn. Always. Our staff should educate and guide students, to ensure they are well-prepared for life at UConn and beyond. But it should go without saying that our employees cannot appear to endorse or advocate for a particular religion or spiritual philosophy as part of their work at the university, or in their interactions with our students. This applies to work-related activity anywhere on or off campus, including on the football field. Our Athletic Director and Coach Diaco agree wholeheartedly with me, and have made this clear to their staff.”

http://courantblogs.com/uconn-football/uconn-president-susan-herbst-on-respecting-all-religions/

Moving a scheduled football game, to accomodate a particular religions, which gives the "appearance of endorsing" a particular religion is in direct violation of this statement. Not only that, doing that, resulted in the game being put on a less accessible broadcasting platform, and thus did not reach as many people as could have been reached through broadcasting (which I've since become 100% sure about).

That's all I'm saying. I don't really care about what religions are what. If you're going to proclaim it publicly, be consistent.
Expand ...
the fact that you can't distinguish a coach stating that regardless of religious background, his players will learn that Jesus is in the huddle (essentially intolerance of all other religions), and Uconn pushing back a game to accomodate a group of people on one of their high holidays (essentially a sign of respect) is telling. very telling.

Not even sure why you think these two instances have anything in common. How many times has Ollie invoked the name of his savior in his comments. Has that been an issue? No. Why? Because he's not suggesting that all his players follow Jesus.

But keep digging Carl. And keep throwing in the proverbial, "I don't care about religion" and "the schedule change didn't bother me" comments.

Maybe while you're digging, you can find a clue...
 
For everyone complaining about how Uconn handled this, go back and listen to KO's introduction. Not 30 seconds in he is thanking his savior.
Never heard anything from the state.

This is an issue only because some thick headed people on this board want to make it an issue.
 
Marty Jackson said:
For everyone complaining about how Uconn handled this, go back and listen to KO's introduction. Not 30 seconds in he is thanking his savior.
Never heard anything from the state.

This is an issue only because some thick headed people on this board want to make it an issue.
Expand ...

You keep arguing with him about things he never said. It's the Nelson Strawman move.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,388
Messages
4,570,071
Members
10,475
Latest member
Tunwin22


Top Bottom