DougSutton
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 415
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.
Last edited: