Beathard Lawsuit VS ISU/Spack/Lyons

[DougSutton]

Seriously???! There were BLM posters in the locker room and on Kaufman Bldg office doors but when Coach Beathard put his sign up he was told to take it down.

And I doubt that Coach Beathard would be allowed to call a meeting on his own. He would need at least Coach Spack's approval and it may go even higher than that. If they're telling him to take his sign down, I have serious doubts about whether they would call a meeting to discuss an explosive issue. Many players strongly supported BLM and Coach Beathard had issues with the movement. I don't think they were going to come to an agreement. Like I said in another thread. I have a co-worker and we disagree on vaccine and mask mandates. Agree to disagree and get back to work. It's called Tolerance. If we don't learn it this will only get worse.

Total, I have massive respect for you and all that you've contributed to this board over the years and appreciate the willingness to have a dialogue about this delicate topic. This entire thread (per Quinn's request) is about the legal basis for firing and I want to be clear that I'm not taking any position on this other than sharing what could easily be considered a valid legal perspective as well as one that many people could perceive as common sense relating to leadership.

I do believe there is a big difference between not being "allowed to speak" and contributing to a volatile energy. Not speaking to each other and resorting to putting signs up can easily be considered a form of passive aggressive behavior and poor leadership, on all sides.

I'm not sure whether Coach Beathard felt empowered to call a meeting on his own or not however I do agree that at minimum, he could have gone to Coach Spack and suggested that he would like to call a meeting and take advantage of this opportunity to teach tolerance. These are details we don't know. Responding to a sign you disagree with by putting up another sign can appear petty and childish.

Again, the topic does not matter at all from a legal perspective. I'm only sharing there is a big distinction between a person's right to free speech and being allowed to speak or have their own thoughts as you have asserted. What only appears on the surface is a situation that could have been handled much better by all parties involved, missing out on what you and I agree to be an incredible opportunity to teach tolerance. It could be argued that it was the responsibility of the leader to lead by teaching these lessons. I never had the opportunity to meet Coach Beathard but have heard he's an awesome person and I wish him the very best. I am not taking a position against him but instead am attempting to present a perspective that could have been a justification for his being fired that is not relating to preventing him free speech. That is all.

 

[Adunk33]

College kids do not see BLM as a "political movement."

 

[MadBird]

I'm laying back from this discussion some, reading and appreciating others comments, but not sure I have much to add at this point. BUT I will add this:

Illinois State Athletic Department Action Plan for Social Change - Illinois State University Athletics

The following is the Illinois State Athletic Department Action Plan for Social Change.

goredbirds.com

• Illinois State athletics is committed to responding to the list of demands offered by Redbird student-athletes. Additionally, the athletic department reaffirms that without hesitation that BLACK LIVES MATTER. Illinois State Athletics is also committed to work with experts and partner with our student-athletes on this action plan.

Seems like this may be the source of the problem with Coach Beathard, if he put up a poster that seems so contradictory to the department's policy. For better or worse.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

Honestly, it doesn’t matter what the truth is anymore, not in today’s environment.
We all know that racism is the toxic soup of the day; whether the accusation is legitimate, or not (99.9% not), you’re now considered guilty until proven innocent.
I’m sure this gets settled with the end result being Spack forced out of his job for no reason other than the university not having enough backbone to defend this situation in court.

 

[fourthandshort]

Honestly, it doesn’t matter what the truth is anymore, not in today’s environment.
We all know that racism is the toxic soup of the day; whether the accusation is legitimate, or not (99.9% not), you’re now considered guilty until proven innocent.
I’m sure this gets settled with the end result being Spack forced out of his job for no reason other than the university not having enough backbone to defend this situation in court.

99.9% Not legitimate ?

Ok, this just might be a blind spot for you, as you've clearly made up your mind about something you couldn't possibly know or appreciate, much less empathize with.

 

[Total Red]

Seems like this may be the source of the problem with Coach Beathard, if he put up a poster that seems so contradictory to the department's policy. For better or worse.

Yes that is the source of the problem according to the lawsuit that was filed. The university has taken a position on a social issue and they are stifling alternative viewpoints. Diversity of thought is being denied.

I find it interesting that you consider Beathard's poster "so" contradictory. I would consider a poster that read "Black Lives Do Not Matter" to be highly contradictory. I do not think Beathard's was contradictory at all because it included All Lives. You also use the word "seems." I find this happens a lot in social and racial issues. One side has a hard time explaining why they object to something said so they choose not to focus on the actual words that are spoken or written but how those words made them feel. That's the real rabbit hole because anyone at any time can claim that something made them "feel" uncomfortable.

Examples -
Kurt Beathard could choose to interpret the Black Lives Matter poster placed on his door as a personal attack made to make him feel like his recently deceased wife didn't matter. I don't think that was the intent at all. I think it was placed there to promote the BLM movement.
And Illinois State athletes can choose to interpret Beathard's All Lives Matter poster as an insult to them and an attempt to undermine the BLM movement. Again, I don't think that was the intent. I think Coach Beathard was merely attempting to express his own views that supported his wife and his religion. Both sides would be reading things into the messages that were not said and neither side should be allowed to do it. When you start reading things into messages that aren't there you begin feeding your own intolerance.

BLACK LIVES MATTER - I agree with that. ALL LIVES MATTER - I agree with that.

This didn't need to become such a contentious issue. This didn't need to become a lawsuit.

A little tolerance, acceptance and willingness to allow everyone equal opportunity to express themselves would have gone a long way.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

99.9% Not legitimate ?

Ok, this just might be a blind spot for you, as you've clearly made up your mind about something you couldn't possibly know or appreciate, much less empathize with.

Yeah, I have zero percent empathy for any organization that uses racism as a means of extortion.

 

[MadBird]

Yes that is the source of the problem according to the lawsuit that was filed. The university has taken a position on a social issue and they are stifling alternative viewpoints. Diversity of thought is being denied.

I find it interesting that you consider Beathard's poster "so" contradictory. I would consider a poster that read "Black Lives Do Not Matter" to be highly contradictory. I do not think Beathard's was contradictory at all because it included All Lives. You also use the word "seems." I find this happens a lot in social and racial issues. One side has a hard time explaining why they object to something said so they choose not to focus on the actual words that are spoken or written but how those words made them feel. That's the real rabbit hole because anyone at any time can claim that something made them "feel" uncomfortable.

Examples -
Kurt Beathard could choose to interpret the Black Lives Matter poster placed on his door as a personal attack made to make him feel like his recently deceased wife didn't matter. I don't think that was the intent at all. I think it was placed there to promote the BLM movement.
And Illinois State athletes can choose to interpret Beathard's All Lives Matter poster as an insult to them and an attempt to undermine the BLM movement. Again, I don't think that was the intent. I think Coach Beathard was merely attempting to express his own views that supported his wife and his religion. Both sides would be reading things into the messages that were not said and neither side should be allowed to do it. When you start reading things into messages that aren't there you begin feeding your own intolerance.

BLACK LIVES MATTER - I agree with that. ALL LIVES MATTER - I agree with that.

This didn't need to become such a contentious issue. This didn't need to become a lawsuit.

A little tolerance, acceptance and willingness to allow everyone equal opportunity to express themselves would have gone a long way.

Well, it was never clear to me until I saw that "policy" that there was a "policy" and I agree taking an "official" position, whether it was Lyons or the entire U, is the source of the problem. But see, to me, I don't see that Beathard, or anyone, has a "right" to a personal point of view IN THE WORKPLACE if the workplace has an official position (I know it's not that easy in real life, but you know what I mean). So once the university embraced the "social justice workplan" or whatever it was called, then all private points of view IN THE WORKPLACE, are off. I think, I guess.

It isn't whether I consider All Lives Matter contradictory, its that the University/Spack, and apparently some of the players, did.

And I couldn't agree more with your comment about BLM and ALM NOT being contradictory, unless people want them to be.

 

[StLRedbird]

Well, it was never clear to me until I saw that "policy" that there was a "policy" and I agree taking an "official" position, whether it was Lyons or the entire U, is the source of the problem. But see, to me, I don't see that Beathard, or anyone, has a "right" to a personal point of view IN THE WORKPLACE if the workplace has an official position (I know it's not that easy in real life, but you know what I mean). So once the university embraced the "social justice workplan" or whatever it was called, then all private points of view IN THE WORKPLACE, are off. I think, I guess.

It isn't whether I consider All Lives Matter contradictory, its that the University/Spack, and apparently some of the players, did.

And I couldn't agree more with your comment about BLM and ALM NOT being contradictory, unless people want them to be.

Sometimes there is need for a devil's advocate and this is one of them. Let's say you're a college age kid on the football team that believes strongly in the Black Lives Matter movement, and you believe that it means Black Lives Matter As Much As Other Ones Do. If someone puts up a poster that says ALL Lives Matter in the Eyes of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how do you respond? Chuckle at the irony? Unlikely. Get angry that the other guy is missing the point of what you're saying? This could have been a helluva teaching moment in the right hands. I'm gonna go ahead and believe Beathard's wife's recent passing clouded his judgement. Not sure it was handled well, but a lot of things weren't handled well in those days.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

Well, it was never clear to me until I saw that "policy" that there was a "policy" and I agree taking an "official" position, whether it was Lyons or the entire U, is the source of the problem. But see, to me, I don't see that Beathard, or anyone, has a "right" to a personal point of view IN THE WORKPLACE if the workplace has an official position (I know it's not that easy in real life, but you know what I mean). So once the university embraced the "social justice workplan" or whatever it was called, then all private points of view IN THE WORKPLACE, are off. I think, I guess.

It isn't whether I consider All Lives Matter contradictory, its that the University/Spack, and apparently some of the players, did.

And I couldn't agree more with your comment about BLM and ALM NOT being contradictory, unless people want them to be.

What happens if said “policy” does not exist at the work place but is brought on after you’ve been hired?

 

[Total Red]

Well, it was never clear to me until I saw that "policy" that there was a "policy" and I agree taking an "official" position, whether it was Lyons or the entire U, is the source of the problem. But see, to me, I don't see that Beathard, or anyone, has a "right" to a personal point of view IN THE WORKPLACE if the workplace has an official position (I know it's not that easy in real life, but you know what I mean). So once the university embraced the "social justice workplan" or whatever it was called, then all private points of view IN THE WORKPLACE, are off. I think, I guess.

If all private points of view were off (not allowed) that would be equity. But all private points of view are not off. If your PPOV happens to be the same as that of the university then you are allowed to express it.

The university should support the phrase Black Lives Matter but supporting the Black Lives Matter movement is more complicated. The BLM movement can endorse a variety of tactics and proposals. Does the university then support Defund The Police? Defund The Police could actually result in greater violence and minority neighborhoods might actually suffer the most. Beware of unintended consequences. I could provide more examples but I hope you get the point. You can open a can of worms when you endorse a movement because it then appears that you endorse everything that takes place under that umbrella including protests that get out of hand. And again, if the university endorses the Black Lives Matter movement does that preclude any employee from providing an alternative point of view if they think the movement has gone astray? Based on what you wrote the answer is "yes." Only those people that agree with the official university position are allowed to speak.

 

[TIMMY]

If all private points of view were off (not allowed) that would be equity. But all private points of view are not off. If your PPOV happens to be the same as that of the university then you are allowed to express it.

The university should support the phrase Black Lives Matter but supporting the Black Lives Matter movement is more complicated. The BLM movement can endorse a variety of tactics and proposals. Does the university then support Defund The Police? Defund The Police could actually result in greater violence and minority neighborhoods might actually suffer the most. Beware of unintended consequences. I could provide more examples but I hope you get the point. You can open a can of worms when you endorse a movement because it then appears that you endorse everything that takes place under that umbrella including protests that get out of hand. And again, if the university endorses the Black Lives Matter movement does that preclude any employee from providing an alternative point of view if they think the movement has gone astray? Based on what you wrote the answer is "yes." Only those people that agree with the official university position are allowed to speak.

Or defunding could mean reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality which could result in less violence in minority communities because defunding doesn't mean abolishing and this is why we shouldn't talk politics here!!!!! Peace to all of my Redbird brothers! Much love, Timmy.

 

[Total Red]

Or defunding could mean reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality which could result in less violence in minority communities because defunding doesn't mean abolishing

Depends on who you're talking to - ... and nice talking social issues with you

 

[TIMMY]

Those people are goofs. There's a real difference between defunding and abolishing in my neck of southeastern Wisconsin.
We need to get that beer brother!

 

[Virginia Redbird]

Those people are goofs. There's a real difference between defunding and abolishing in my neck of southeastern Wisconsin.
We need to get that beer brother!

This is not politics just statistics. The crime rates are skyrocketing in cities that "defunded" the police. Many of those cities are putting money back into the police department. Just one example.

Portland police tell residents 911 response times may be delayed due to staffing shortage, critical incidents

Portland residents may have had delayed response times to their 911 calls on Monday due to a number of critical incidents and the police department's “staffing shortage."

www.foxnews.com

My last post on this string. I think we have ventured way off the original topic.

 

[Total Red]

BREAKING: Minnesota flips North Dakota State OL commit Ashton Beers​

By Ryan Burns
247Sports
1 day ago

Minnesota Football only had two official visitors on campus this past weekend, but they were able to hit on at least one of them as following an offer on the visit, PJ Fleck and company have received a commitment from a Midwest offensive lineman. One of the top offensive lineman in...

Lots of players will flip down the stretch so it's not necessarily related to any controversial issue. It's usually a player that thinks they can do better.

 

[isuquinndog]

This topic may be getting exhausted until something happens in the case.

 

[jbird]

In any personnel dispute, the first place to look is the employee's contract. A burger flipper likely does not have a contract and can be terminated at will for any reason...........or for no reason. However, I assume that an offensive coordinator at an NCAA FCS program is operating under a contract.. Did the contract restrain the employee from making political comments without university clearance? i don't know. Was Beathard first asked or instructed to take his sign down and refused to comply with an order from a superior? I don't know.

Judges are wildly unpredictable, and sometimes attorneys can game the system by filing their complaint when they know the judicial rotation and therefore have a better chance of getting a favorable judge. But I think that one issue will be whether not merely saying that "All Lives Matter" but by also tacking on the reference to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is sufficient to convert a political statement into a religious belief; if the former, it does not qualify for protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but if the latter, it arguably does.

Any way, as others have said, this is a huge clusterf&*ck for a football program that needs talent to rebuild from a 4-7 season.The timing could not have been worse, which may be precisely why Beathard and his attorney proceeded now instead of several months ago.

 

[MadBird]

In any personnel dispute, the first place to look is the employee's contract. A burger flipper likely does not have a contract and can be terminated at will for any reason...........or for no reason. However, I assume that an offensive coordinator at an NCAA FCS program is operating under a contract.. Did the contract restrain the employee from making political comments without university clearance? i don't know. Was Beathard first asked or instructed to take his sign down and refused to comply with an order from a superior? I don't know.

Judges are wildly unpredictable, and sometimes attorneys can game the system by filing their complaint when they know the judicial rotation and therefore have a better chance of getting a favorable judge. But I think that one issue will be whether not merely saying that "All Lives Matter" but by also tacking on the reference to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is sufficient to convert a political statement into a religious belief; if the former, it does not qualify for protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but if the latter, it arguably does.

Any way, as others have said, this is a huge clusterf&*ck for a football program that needs talent to rebuild from a 4-7 season.The timing could not have been worse, which may be precisely why Beathard and his attorney proceeded now instead of several months ago.

Beathard isn't claiming his contract was violated, indeed he was paid until his contract expired, then it wasn't renewed. He says his first amendment rights were violated. Does an employee have "free speech rights" when performing his job? I would say if Beathard wasn't renewed because on a Sunday he stood on a street corner with an "All Lives Matter to our Lord" sign, then he's got a case. But standing up and doing the same thing in the hallway outside your office, that's a problem. Maybe.

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

Beathard isn't claiming his contract was violated, indeed he was paid until his contract expired, then it wasn't renewed. He says his first amendment rights were violated. Does an employee have "free speech rights" when performing his job? I would say if Beathard wasn't renewed because on a Sunday he stood on a street corner with an "All Lives Matter to our Lord" sign, then he's got a case. But standing up and doing the same thing in the hallway outside your office, that's a problem. Maybe.

Not coming from a personal viewpoint but a legal standpoint:
Did kneeling by the Professional Athletes fall under the same workplace as Coach Beathard’s workplace rights?
If the defendant was asked in court “If the sign that Coach Beathard hung on his door was hung up by someone from Puerto Rico, and it said Puerto Rican lives matter, would you have removed them from their coaching position?
If someone from Cuba placed the same sign on the door that Mr Beathard hung on the door, would you have remove them from their coaching position?
If Ben Carson were the OC and placed that same sign on the door that Mr Beathard hung on the door, would you have removed him from his coaching position?
Could Mr Beathard have been reacting to the pain of recently losing his wife, because her live mattered?
Is there anything in the ISU Policy that prohibits any religious statements or display of religious objects displayed on ISU property?
Do these sound like questions that would come up in a hearing?