Beathard Lawsuit VS ISU/Spack/Lyons

[Total Red]

There are plenty of times that a coach or leader in business gets fired because they have "lost the locker room" or in the case of the business leader, they have lost their staff who no longer truly follows them.

Again, we also do not know what other conversations or actions were taken outside of these 2 events of one sign being posted and another replacing it.

I'm not sure if your concern about denying a diversity of thought is valid and my sense is that it is not the thought or believe of anyone that was the reason he was fired but instead a perceived lack of leadership and behavior that was the deeper cause.

I would liken this to the midpoint of a criminal investigation. It’s not solved yet so there’s a lot that you don’t know but there’s also a lot that you do know and there are logical conclusions that can be made based on what you do know.

It isn’t likely that Coach Kurt Beathard’s reassignment in 2020 had much of anything to do with performance on the field. Maybe AD Lyons or Coach Spack will claim that it was football field related to divert attention away from divisive issues but that wouldn’t pass the sniff test. The Redbirds were coming off a 10-5 season in 2019. That team was 8-3 with QB Brady Davis as the starter and Davis was returning for the 2020 season.

The change in Beathard’s status does correspond to the flap over the poster on his door. Could that have been the reason for his reassignment? YES. How do I know that? Because ISU athletes also called for the resignation of another member of the Athletic Dept. for a nearly identical reason. You may recall that we had some athletes that wanted Larry Lyons to resign. Why? Lyons had committed the offense of saying “All Redbird Lives Matter.” That was it. People keep saying we don’t know the whole story but clearly if they had better reasons for him to resign, they wouldn’t have offered just that one. And if Larry Lyons had not issued an apology, they may have been able to force his removal. It’s the athletes that were driving this thing and they weren’t silent. We do know what they were thinking. Larry Lyons and Coach Spack were just ones to carry out their wishes when Coach Beathard was reassigned. AD Lyons didn’t want to go down and Coach Spack didn’t want to go down. Coach Kurt Beathard had the audacity to express his grief on a poster, so he was the one that took the hit. Maybe there were other conversations before Coach Beathard put his poster up. He may have expressed the view that he did not support BLM. So what. The players that supported BLM got to express their views. And yes, Coach Beathard may have lost support of some of the players in the locker room as you suggest, but he didn’t lose it for football related reasons. Beathard and Lyons lost support for expressing personal views. And Beathard didn’t just lose support, he lost his job. He was denied diversity of thought.

This was a teaching moment in college athletics that went horribly wrong. The athletes could have been asked to practice tolerance along with Kurt Beathard. Beathard didn’t agree with their point of view but he was still willing to work with them. They were not willing to work with him. If Beathard had not been reassigned some athletes would have staged a boycott and some would have left. That’s their choice. If they weren’t willing to learn tolerance then maybe it is best that they leave and we lost some transfers anyway. But they weren’t asked to display tolerance. The university caved to demands and intolerance was supported. And now everyone is a loser including the Illinois State Football team which has gone 5-10 since Beathard left. That’s a complete turnaround, from 10-5 to 5-10. It sure is.

 

[fourthandshort]

I’m not touching this politically or legally. The courts will settle it. My question is, IF Coach Spack made the comment “Black Lives Matter is freaking nuts”, how does that affect the ability for him to recruit Black athletes?

As you said, we need to let courts settle, once the claim is fully vetted. And I didn't read up on this legal filing and claim by Beathard .. and that is all that is right now, someone making a claim.

But I don't think we know any context to Spack's comment, who he said it to and again, the context .. assuming it is true. Was it in private in one on one conversation about a specific incident.

If he made that comment in private and off the cuff, and most certainly didn't post that comment on his door for all to see ... it certainly doesn't come close to Beathard deciding to post his feelings on his office door for all the players to walk by and see every day. Can you imagine a world, where people can take down other people for something said in private.

Need more info

 

[CaliRdBrd]

You have to be pretty tone deaf to do what Beathard did. Worse, he's damaging the school that hired him twice.

For saying all lives matter? Wow, God forbid. String him up now!

 

[CaliRdBrd]

I've already agreed that the Athletic Dept. will likely be found to be within their legal right to take the actions they took but for me it goes beyond that. This is a public university. I want to know that the university that I support did the right thing. I want to know that they support values of fairness.

If an employee is causing strain, I would assume that a company would be even more concerned if the behavior was work related. For example, if Beathard as OC was found to be making derogatory comments about defensive coaches and players, that would be behavior that was work related and a cause for action. Beathard's behavior in this matter was personal and not related to the substance of his work.

Even so, I would agree that an employee's personal beliefs could still be cause for concern and perhaps dismissal, if the employee was abrasive and attempting to impose their thoughts and beliefs on others. For example, if Beathard had placed an "All Lives Matter" poster on Bryce Jefferson's locker then he would have been guilty of knowingly causing offense. But Beathard did not do that, in fact, according to published reports, it was just the OPPOSITE. A "Black Lives Matter" poster was placed on his office door. He wasn't necessarily looking to make a social or religious statement, but the issue was thrown up in his face. He responded with a poster of his own that accurately reflected what he truly believed. Btw, it's ridiculous to say that he was "hiding" behind his religion. By all accounts Beathard is a devout Christian. His faith affects everything he does. He was actually being very up front about what he believes and where that belief comes from - "All Lives Matter to our Lord & Savoir Jesus Christ." That's his belief but there are no accounts of him forcing that view on others.

From what we know, Kurt Beathard was not guilty of the more obvious or egregious forms of behavior that are normally found in dismissals, but I am sure you can still find team members that objected to his message.

I would find the objections of those players ironic and even hypocritical when you consider the current emphasis at Illinois State University. If you are a current or prospective student at ISU, you are going to hear a lot about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In reading about DEI and talking to DEI proponents I find that they believe in diversity in all areas until it comes to diversity of thought. When it comes to diversity of thought it is easy to cancel another person and claim that their ideas are causing you distress. I think we need to add a "T" to the end of DEI the same way that letters have been added to "LGB." The "T" would be for Tolerance. DEIT.

I'm retired with a volunteer job. In that job I have a co-worker with whom I spend the majority of my time. This person and I have had multiple conversations about vaccine and mask mandates. Our views conflict but that is not a source of strain. I respect but disagree with his point of view and he respects but disagrees with mine. Now back to work. That's how it should work. But I'm concerned that that isn't how it worked in our Athletic Dept. Diversity of thought was denied. The actions taken reek of a decision based on intolerance instead of tolerance. In these troubled times, intolerance isn't what the university should be teaching, and it doesn't pass the fairness test.

Excellent response. Thank you.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

I appreciate you sharing your perspective and agree that there must be multiple layers beneath this story than what is being shared. A big challenge as @MadBird shared is that the only real public voice and perspective that is being shared and drawing media attention is the victim story that Beathard is sharing. It is understandable and expected that we will not hear Coach Spack's side of the story in public as I'm sure his attorneys are advising against that and also it's not his style to share stories like this in public. It's a no win situation for Coach Spack and the University as a result because Beathard and his attorneys can go on a media campaign to make accusations that will not be countered, all while drawing media attention.

You did suggest that it would be completely different, and offensive if Beathard had put this sign on Bryce Jefferson's locker instead. All we know is what has been shared so its impossible and unfair to speculate however since some speculation is being made about what is right vs. wrong, offensive vs. justified, I do believe it's fair to acknowledge that we don't know what led to the original sign being placed on his door to begin with.

I would suggest it's highly likely that whoever posted that sign to begin with (whether it was one person or a group of people) did so as a response or counter to something that Beathard either directly said or did that caused this response. We do not know what conversations may or may not have been overheard or what caused this initial action. I also believe it's likely that whoever put that sign up was a student athlete and while I won't choose to take any position on the topic of the posters because to me, that is not relevant relating to the decision to fire Beathard but rather the perceived leadership or perhaps lack of by choosing to respond in the way he did and this goes beyond the sign itself.

There are plenty of times that a coach or leader in business gets fired because they have "lost the locker room" or in the case of the business leader, they have lost their staff who no longer truly follows them.

Again, we also do not know what other conversations or actions were taken outside of these 2 events of one sign being posted and another replacing it.

I'm not sure if your concern about denying a diversity of thought is valid and my sense is that it is not the thought or believe of anyone that was the reason he was fired but instead a perceived lack of leadership and behavior that was the deeper cause.

I want to be clear I'm not taking sides here at all and have compassion for Beathard as well as Spack and the leadership at Illinois State. At the same time, I feel it's only fair to point out that most likely there is much more behind the story and cause for this firing that will not be shared in public and I wouldn't expect it to nor do I care to know.

You’re not taking side but you seem to be making assumptions (kinda the same thing).
Well, here’s my assumption…
We all know how this will play out, students will lose their minds by focusing on only one-side of the equation, the media will stoke the fires of a “racist” coach (Beathard), the university will cave, at the expense of our very own Constitiution, as well as rights if the individual. Finally, the NCCA will likely demand retribution/sanctions and Spack will be gone.
All because of a sign saying saying “All lives matter according to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ”.

 

[DougSutton]

I would liken this to the midpoint of a criminal investigation. It’s not solved yet so there’s a lot that you don’t know but there’s also a lot that you do know and there are logical conclusions that can be made based on what you do know.

It isn’t likely that Coach Kurt Beathard’s reassignment in 2020 had much of anything to do with performance on the field. Maybe AD Lyons or Coach Spack will claim that it was football field related to divert attention away from divisive issues but that wouldn’t pass the sniff test. The Redbirds were coming off a 10-5 season in 2019. That team was 8-3 with QB Brady Davis as the starter and Davis was returning for the 2020 season.

The change in Beathard’s status does correspond to the flap over the poster on his door. Could that have been the reason for his reassignment? YES. How do I know that? Because ISU athletes also called for the resignation of another member of the Athletic Dept. for a nearly identical reason. You may recall that we had some athletes that wanted Larry Lyons to resign. Why? Lyons had committed the offense of saying “All Redbird Lives Matter.” That was it. People keep saying we don’t know the whole story but clearly if they had better reasons for him to resign, they wouldn’t have offered just that one. And if Larry Lyons had not issued an apology, they may have been able to force his removal. It’s the athletes that were driving this thing and they weren’t silent. We do know what they were thinking. Larry Lyons and Coach Spack were just ones to carry out their wishes when Coach Beathard was reassigned. AD Lyons didn’t want to go down and Coach Spack didn’t want to go down. Coach Kurt Beathard had the audacity to express his grief on a poster, so he was the one that took the hit. Maybe there were other conversations before Coach Beathard put his poster up. He may have expressed the view that he did not support BLM. So what. The players that supported BLM got to express their views. And yes, Coach Beathard may have lost support of some of the players in the locker room as you suggest, but he didn’t lose it for football related reasons. Beathard and Lyons lost support for expressing personal views. And Beathard didn’t just lose support, he lost his job. He was denied diversity of thought.

This was a teaching moment in college athletics that went horribly wrong. The athletes could have been asked to practice tolerance along with Kurt Beathard. Beathard didn’t agree with their point of view but he was still willing to work with them. They were not willing to work with him. If Beathard had not been reassigned some athletes would have staged a boycott and some would have left. That’s their choice. If they weren’t willing to learn tolerance then maybe it is best that they leave and we lost some transfers anyway. But they weren’t asked to display tolerance. The university caved to demands and intolerance was supported. And now everyone is a loser including the Illinois State Football team which has gone 5-10 since Beathard left. That’s a complete turnaround, from 10-5 to 5-10. It sure is.

I know we have consensus that we don't know what happened outside of the one sided victim story that Beathard and his attorney are sharing since it appears that Coach Spack and his attorneys are not going to comment in public about this issue, nor should they. I agree that there are a number of knowns however also am certain there are multiple unknowns that led to his firing.

You made a leap with your statement asserting he was denied diversity of thought which from my perspective is only an assumption that may not be close to the truth. I shared before that there are many cases every year where a coach gets fired because they lost their locker room or leaders in business get fired because they lost the respect of the people that report to them. In these cases of firings, they often revolve around what these leaders are "saying" but them being fired wasn't about the person's right of free speech of diversity of thought but the assessment of how their leadership was impacting the company, or team.

I agree there is a teaching moment in this however without full context, it is completely unfair for any of us to attempt to identify or assume what specifically this is.

From a legal perspective (focusing on Quinn's wishes for this thread), the topic doesn't matter. The signs could have been about Chicago deep crust pizza vs. New York thin crust and which one was better. I will say that from a leadership perspective, I put a greater amount of responsibility on a coach, a manager, VP or CEO of a company to set a tone and standard of the type of ideal behavior and culture that is desired and this includes proactively changing any current tone that may be volatile and to calm the tension.

So in the example of the pizza (because the topic truly is irrelevant as it relates to the legal case), if coach Beathard was adamant that New York style thin crust was better than Chicago deep crust, instead of taking down a sign and putting up another one, he could have taken many different actions including reaching out personally to those that like Chicago deep crust and offered to sit down and have a conversation with the spirit of not just offering tolerance (because we don't know if Beathard has yet displayed this) but a willingness to fully understand each other's perspective.

If the sign was a metaphorical last straw that led to the firing (or subsequent private conversations after this), I do not see how the behavior of putting this sign up correlates to a violation of a person's right of free speech or denying someone's diversity of thought. It's not what someone thinks or says that matters but how they behave and choose to express what they want that matters most.

The only conclusion that I can personally draw from this situation without making assumptions is that coach Beathard chose to engage in a tone of communication that was more conflicting and passive aggressive as opposed to applying a level of leadership to change the tone and energy that was present (to your point about any possibility of teaching tolerance).

This by itself, without any other information could easily be identified as a lack of leadership responsibility on Beathard's part and what none of us know is what if anything else happened behind the scenes that contributed to this. Again, from a legal perspective, the topic doesn't matter.

 

[tgate]

 

[Total Red]

You made a leap with your statement asserting he was denied diversity of thought which from my perspective is only an assumption that may not be close to the truth.

If you were following the Larry Lyons "All Redbird Lives Matter" controversy you should be able to tell that it's not much of a leap at all to what happened with Kurt Beathard. I can see that, you can't, we disagree.

 

[DougSutton]

If you were following the Larry Lyons "All Redbird Lives Matter" controversy you should be able to tell that it's not much of a leap at all to what happened with Kurt Beathard. I can see that, you can't, we disagree.

The leap that I'm referring to is the claim that the only reason he was fired is because Coach Spack and the University denied a diversity of thought. I am suggesting that it could be much more complex than this than to oversimplify and isolate it to not allowing free speech or thought.

I believe tone, context, culture, leadership and setting also matter tremendously and all of these could have also played a role in what happened and of course as I mentioned before, I'm sure there could be many other factors that we are not aware of, nor will they be shared because Coach Spack and the University attorneys are asking them not to share. I also want to be clear that I do not know the truth but I won't go so far as to imply that I do know.

You mentioned there was a teaching moment that went horribly wrong relating to the ability to teach tolerance and I agree completely with this. From a legal perspective (which is what Quinn is requesting we keep this to along with how it will impact the university), I believe this firing could be argued and justified for reasons other than a person's beliefs.

From what I can read and deduce, there must have been rising tensions in the locker room and for some reason, someone or a group of people felt a need to place the original sign on coach Beathard's door. This escalated what was already a volatile cultural environment within the team and could be perceived as passive aggressive behavior from whoever put the sign there.

At this point, to your point, there was an opportunity for a teaching moment that went horribly wrong. It's possible that there could have been an expectation that as a leader, coach Beathard could have taken this opportunity to call a team meeting and sit everyone down and had an open and transparent conversation about his beliefs and desire to teach tolerance of differing opinions and extended a metaphorical olive branch to create common ground and a sense of shared mutual respect for differing views. Instead of doing this, it could have been perceived that the behavior he chose was engaging in a form of passive aggressive "tit for tat" behavior that instead of calming the tensions, only escalated them even further than they already were.

Regardless of the topic (this could have been about the best style of pizza and Beathard wanted to share that all pizzas matter), what was already a point of tension and conflict had an opportunity for a great teaching moment that the person in a position of paid leadership could have capitalized on and instead chose a different path.

That is the only point I was attempting to share from a legal perspective in that the right of free speech by itself is not the same as a leader's responsibility to lead.

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds in court. I do have compassion for coach Beathard, coach Spack, the kids that were on the team and everyone that was involved in this. It's unfortunate that it unfolded as it did. There have been plenty of times in the past where I acted out when my limbic system got triggered and said or did things without being in a place of mindfulness and holding a wider perspective and I'm sure I'll do it again.

I guess we can only hope that we can reflect on the past and make better decisions moving forward. It's just unfortunate that this is all being played out in the way it is, for everyone involved.

 

[cubird]

Think we can all agree that our offense has tanked since Beathard left.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

The leap that I'm referring to is the claim that the only reason he was fired is because Coach Spack and the University denied a diversity of thought. I am suggesting that it could be much more complex than this than to oversimplify and isolate it to not allowing free speech or thought.

I believe tone, context, culture, leadership and setting also matter tremendously and all of these could have also played a role in what happened and of course as I mentioned before, I'm sure there could be many other factors that we are not aware of, nor will they be shared because Coach Spack and the University attorneys are asking them not to share. I also want to be clear that I do not know the truth but I won't go so far as to imply that I do know.

You mentioned there was a teaching moment that went horribly wrong relating to the ability to teach tolerance and I agree completely with this. From a legal perspective (which is what Quinn is requesting we keep this to along with how it will impact the university), I believe this firing could be argued and justified for reasons other than a person's beliefs.

From what I can read and deduce, there must have been rising tensions in the locker room and for some reason, someone or a group of people felt a need to place the original sign on coach Beathard's door. This escalated what was already a volatile cultural environment within the team and could be perceived as passive aggressive behavior from whoever put the sign there.

At this point, to your point, there was an opportunity for a teaching moment that went horribly wrong. It's possible that there could have been an expectation that as a leader, coach Beathard could have taken this opportunity to call a team meeting and sit everyone down and had an open and transparent conversation about his beliefs and desire to teach tolerance of differing opinions and extended a metaphorical olive branch to create common ground and a sense of shared mutual respect for differing views. Instead of doing this, it could have been perceived that the behavior he chose was engaging in a form of passive aggressive "tit for tat" behavior that instead of calming the tensions, only escalated them even further than they already were.

Regardless of the topic (this could have been about the best style of pizza and Beathard wanted to share that all pizzas matter), what was already a point of tension and conflict had an opportunity for a great teaching moment that the person in a position of paid leadership could have capitalized on and instead chose a different path.

That is the only point I was attempting to share from a legal perspective in that the right of free speech by itself is not the same as a leader's responsibility to lead.

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds in court. I do have compassion for coach Beathard, coach Spack, the kids that were on the team and everyone that was involved in this. It's unfortunate that it unfolded as it did. There have been plenty of times in the past where I acted out when my limbic system got triggered and said or did things without being in a place of mindfulness and holding a wider perspective and I'm sure I'll do it again.

I guess we can only hope that we can reflect on the past and make better decisions moving forward. It's just unfortunate that this is all being played out in the way it is, for everyone involved.

What is the purpose of the following sentence…

“From what I can read and deduce, there must have been rising tensions in the locker room and for some reason, someone or a group of people felt a need to place the original sign on coach Beathard's door.”

 

[Virginia Redbird]

If he made that comment in private and off the cuff, and most certainly didn't post that comment on his door for all to see ... it certainly doesn't come close to Beathard deciding to post his feelings on his office door for all the players to walk by and see every day. Can you imagine a world, where people can take down other people for something said in private.

Need more info

Fourth, I would point to John Gruden in response to your question. I don't like "Chucky" in any sense and like the Raiders even less. I also thought his comments in his emails were terrible. But he almost certainly thought they were "private" emails not ever meant for public release. You can argue any email sent on any business type platform is not private and the user agreement (I am assuming the NFL has such an agreement) states there is no privacy. Still, I firmly believe he thought those emails were private. If you are in the public eye you have zero privacy and it is ridiculous to claim you do. If you make a comment, off-handed or not, to someone then you have put yourself in a vulnerable position. You may have been overheard by a third party or the person you told may go public. I don't know if Spack made the comment or not. If he did and it got out somehow, well he owns it now and in this environment, he will probably suffer regardless of context.

I would also comment that Beathard indeed put his feelings out there for everyone to see. IF (big if here) Spack made that comment in "private" and then publicly made different comments who is the one being upfront and truthful?

I think it was TR that posted that nobody wins in this conflict. Beathard almost certainly had his reputation damaged by this and probably it impacted his ability to be hired elsewhere. Coach Spack is already being hit with negative publicity. Lyons is retired and is being sued. The University and football program will have some negative impact if only bad publicity. Yeah, nobody wins here.

 

[isuquinndog]

One thing to remember is who Beathard was over. Mostly, 18-22 yo Black Students. What about how they felt what he did? Isn't it his job to make sure they also aren't made to feel less than? Did he do that? Does taking down the sign that makes them feel empowered and putting up one that may do the opposite something that he should think about as the coach of half the team?

Lots of sides to this.

 

[Total Red]

Lots of sides to this.

Exactly, different sides to this. Only one was allowed to speak.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

One thing to remember is who Beathard was over. Mostly, 18-22 yo Black Students. What about how they felt what he did? Isn't it his job to make sure they also aren't made to feel less than? Did he do that? Does taking down the sign that makes them feel empowered and putting up one that may do the opposite something that he should think about as the coach of half the team?

Lots of sides to this.

Maybe that’s the football programs’ problem…that we have to may kids worried about the politics of an innocuous sign instead of thinking about winning games.
What a bunch of nonsense all around.
That said, we’ve seen this pathetic movie play out hundreds of times this year…Spack will likely be gone.

 

[GhostofMBA]

I always enjoy reading the perspectives out here.

I saw this come across my national news feed; so, it is definitely out there for all to see.

What is the next step in this judicial process for these kinds of things? What I am really asking is, when (timeframe - years from now?) will a legal discovery take place? What are the chances of:

1. Judge dismisses the lawsuit, and no legal discovery can take place
2. Lawsuit moves forward and settled before legal discovery can take place
   1. How long until this happens?
3. Lawsuit moves forward, legal discovery takes place, and this goes to court
   1. How long until this happens?

We know most of these end up at 2, which I believe this will as well. I could not imagine ISU would like to have the emails, text messages, videos (surveillance), phones, and the like scrutinized.
For the ISU athletic program, would ISU want to settle more quickly or look to stretch this one out?

 

[DougSutton]

What is the purpose of the following sentence…

“From what I can read and deduce, there must have been rising tensions in the locker room and for some reason, someone or a group of people felt a need to place the original sign on coach Beathard's door.”

Only to point out that I believe that I and others could easily suggest that prior to the original sign being placed on coach Beathard's door, there must have been some level of tension that existed between coach Beathard and an individual or a group of people for some reason. I do not know the order of

Exactly, different sides to this. Only one was allowed to speak.

Again, I'm not sure if you care to respond to my message earlier but there is absolutely no proof or suggestion that only one side was "allowed to speak."

You identified that there was an opportunity for a teaching moment that went horribly wrong and as a paid staff and person put into a leadership position, coach Beathard had an opportunity to do just that. He had incredible opportunity to call a team meeting, get the kids together and lead a discussion about diversity, inclusion, honoring different backgrounds and beliefs. Total Red, I will suggest that had Coach Beathard chosen to call a team meeting and lead this discussion, not only would he have been "allowed to speak" but his words, display of leadership, energy and actions could have been a catalyst for positive change.

Instead, based only on what we know, he chose to continue with a passive aggressive behavior and "tit for tat" energy that already appeared to be present. @calrdbrd, my only purpose of sharing the above sentence was to acknowledge what I believe was already obvious, that there must have been already existing and rising volatile tensions in the locker room.

Everyone had an opportunity to pause, call a meeting and to Total Red's point, which I totally agree, create a real, meaningful teaching moment. Doing this required a leader to lead and unfortunately it appears that this didn't happen. Yes, it could have been the person or people that put the original sign up but I do believe there would be an expectation that a person in a position of leadership could have been perceived to have the responsibility and expectation to do so.

Also to be clear, the topic does not matter. This could have been about rising tensions relating to an argument about the best style of pizza. I believe Coach Spack must have felt there was a lack of leadership or failure to meet expectations he had and again, there could be a lot more to this story than the only narrative we are reading and hearing about that is coming from Coach Beathard and his attorney.

 

[Total Red]

Again, I'm not sure if you care to respond to my message earlier but there is absolutely no proof or suggestion that only one side was "allowed to speak."

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 Red]

I always enjoy reading the perspectives out here.

I saw this come across my national news feed; so, it is definitely out there for all to see.

What is the next step in this judicial process for these kinds of things? What I am really asking is, when (timeframe - years from now?) will a legal discovery take place? What are the chances of:

1. Judge dismisses the lawsuit, and no legal discovery can take place
2. Lawsuit moves forward and settled before legal discovery can take place
   1. How long until this happens?
3. Lawsuit moves forward, legal discovery takes place, and this goes to court
   1. How long until this happens?

We know most of these end up at 2, which I believe this will as well. I could not imagine ISU would like to have the emails, text messages, videos (surveillance), phones, and the like scrutinized.
For the ISU athletic program, would ISU want to settle more quickly or look to stretch this one out?

+1,
# 2 is most likely

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

I always enjoy reading the perspectives out here.

I saw this come across my national news feed; so, it is definitely out there for all to see.

What is the next step in this judicial process for these kinds of things? What I am really asking is, when (timeframe - years from now?) will a legal discovery take place? What are the chances of:

1. Judge dismisses the lawsuit, and no legal discovery can take place
2. Lawsuit moves forward and settled before legal discovery can take place
   1. How long until this happens?
3. Lawsuit moves forward, legal discovery takes place, and this goes to court
   1. How long until this happens?

We know most of these end up at 2, which I believe this will as well. I could not imagine ISU would like to have the emails, text messages, videos (surveillance), phones, and the like scrutinized.
For the ISU athletic program, would ISU want to settle more quickly or look to stretch this one out?

The Illinois State University President (at that time) is no longer President of the University.
The Illinois State Athletic Director (at that time) is no longer the Athletic Director at the University.
The Head Football Coach at the University (at that time) is:
A) Job status is not going to be affected by this,
B) Negotiate a resignation settlement,
C) Ride it out to see what plays out in the lawsuit.

Will the decision be that the University would like to avoid any negative publicity, and the best way for that to happen is to quickly settle this out of court.

Does the University stand behind their decision on how they handled the situation with Coach Beathard and continue on and let the courts decide?

If the University opts not to settle out of court, does the comment *(previously mentioned) by Coach Spack bring negative attention to the University? Does it affect future recruitment by Coach Spack?
*I am in no way insinuating that Coach Spack:
A) Made that comment,
B) That comment was taken out of context,
C) The comment was exactly what was stated.

Since no one on this board knows all the details of the lawsuit, it is by opinion only that we can answer these questions without bias.
As for Coach Spack, we can only suggest what We/He/ISU might do.