"For gay student, Rutgers proves to be a haven"
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
I think much of this programming, and even campus climate, predates Clementi, or his harasser, ever getting to campus.
Despite the whirlwind of world wide publicity that lead to Rutgers being a example of intolerance in the public imagination it was I believe rather forward leaning compared to many other places in accommodating LGBT before this tragic case.
The idea that this victim, or perpetrator, epitomized Rutgers after they had both been on campus for three weeks was bogus sensationalism. Much easier to pick on Rutgers than ask tough questions about how these families raised their kids and what their home towns and schools were like.
Despite the whirlwind of world wide publicity that lead to Rutgers being a example of intolerance in the public imagination it was I believe rather forward leaning compared to many other places in accommodating LGBT before this tragic case.
The idea that this victim, or perpetrator, epitomized Rutgers after they had both been on campus for three weeks was bogus sensationalism. Much easier to pick on Rutgers than ask tough questions about how these families raised their kids and what their home towns and schools were like.
I wasn't aware of all that, since I am not on the New Brunswick campus. But I am not surprised that the Clementi case was such an exception to the general atmosphere. It doesn't surprise me that someone on campus for just three weeks wouldn't have absorbed the climate yet.
Painting Rutgers as anything but almost ridiculously tolerant of gay on both an institutional and an individual level is one of the greatest smears against the university.
Im not as up onthe story as others - but has their even been any proof that the two kids who broadcast the video werent just being general purpose jerks - would they have not done it if it were Clementi and a woman?
Im not as up onthe story as others - but has their even been any proof that the two kids who broadcast the video werent just being general purpose jerks - would they have not done it if it were Clementi and a woman?
Agree and no.
RU had the second old LGBT campus club in the country.
I think pretty much all the smears are totally inaccurate, but this one is probably the most provably inaccurate.
Funny how the SL will never write about this- the national media will never write about it...
The funniest thing is that they somehow paint RU as ultra liberal in terms of everything except one of the main liberal causes of the day, where we use a lesbian athletic director to take honors from a quadrapalegic and advance a bullying agenda aimed at women and newspapers...
You couldn't make it up- but the sad thing is, that there are universities out there that are really corrupt and oppressive that get away with it.
Well, the problem is that Rutgers just plain had bad luck. It's not every school that had a kid commit suicide after he was outed as gay on the internet by a roommate. And so people draw an inference from that about Rutgers, and it's hard for Rutgers to alter the image. . For better or worse, that's life. We just were unlucky. Luck does not seem to be one of this institution's friends. Perhaps we should remember the words of the great baseball man, Branch Rickey: "luck in the residue of design."
Thats certainly it - the problem is the press loves the simple, sensational story - Rutgers is a TURRIBLE place for gays - the roomate practically pushed the kid off the bridge- instead of the complex and mundane explanations that are the real world.
Same goes with lots of other recent Rutgers issues - the simple story is easier to sell.
yep, and Rutgers has to remember that. Otherwise we'll have more disasters like the Rice affair. Everyone should ask himself, "how might this look if it gets out to the press?"
What irks me is that when PSU covers up Sandusky or when UNC has professors giving athletes credit for not going to class, no one says anything...but Hermann says the SL should shut down, and she's worse than Aaron Hernandez...
I just wish more within our community would acknowledge the agenda and the University would take it more head on. Laughing off the recording of JH was a start, but there did seem to be a "miscommunication" of some kind with commencement.
I just wish more within our community would acknowledge the agenda and the University would take it more head on. Laughing off the recording of JH was a start, but there did seem to be a "miscommunication" of some kind with commencement.
Attacking the press is just so terrible an idea that I can't believe JH did it. The press doesn't like being attacked, and it has barrels of ink to squirt at any one who does so. What did she think -- that no one in a journalism class would leak the story? That's inconceivable. She must always talk to a group as though her conversation is going to be reprinted in a newspaper. What a bad mistake to make.
Here's what fries me about this whole story - they, the loveable media, portray the roommate incident as what led Clementi to commit suicide. They completely refuse to report that he had come out to his parents right before heading to school, and that his mother rejected him for it. Now let's take a stab in the dark here and guess which incident was more traumatic.........hmmmmmmmm........
NIRH,
I agree totally. The agenda is obvious from NJ.com and in the media sources in New Jersey.
The "miscommunication" regarding Eric's standing within the program speaks volumes as to the problem that has been experienced over the years. When there is a contact to be made regarding an event, it is imperative that the Office, Department, or organization running the event designates one person who is to be the contact for all information regarding the event. No one else to speak about the event or the standing of a person who will be part of the event.
However, do keep in mind that, historically, Rutgers - and by extension many of the people who have been involved with the University - has always attempted to stay out of the limelight and apart from the broader aspects of society. When it was forced to become an instrumentality of the State in 1956, administration, staff, faculty, students, alumni, donors, and "friends" were ill-prepared to work with the constant political machinations that go on in politics and the probing of people on the outside with marginal or no understanding of how the University functions.
But perhaps the biggest problem for Rutgers has been how to work with media in a forward-facing "universitywide" approach. I have said this for decades now. The most critical aspect of media relations is for the University to speak with "one voice." Hence, there should be only one spokesperson for the University on the academic side (E.J. Miranda) and one spokesperson on the athletics side (Jason Baum). If anyone else is quoted, they damn well better have proof they were given permission to be quoted from either the president or Chancellor/Vice-president who directly oversees their department. If not, that person is to be canned immediately.
Media Relations and Communications has waxed and waned over the course of the last 40+ years in their effort. Under Mason Gross, it was a flat-out disaster. Under Bloustein, it was better early on and then fell to pieces in the late 80's. Under Lawrence, it was middling okay. McCormick finally made the effort to tighten things up. With Barchi, stuff is slipping through the cracks way way too easily. What frustrates me about this is how willingly Greg Trevor is willing to let that happen. In media relations, it should not matter if you have Matt Drudge and Becky Quick in leadership positions or two first-year students, the Office of Media Relations and Communications should be so tightly run that the message being presented to the larger world is clear, distinctive, with brevity, but most importantly, consistent! Jason has made the effort to do that with Athletics. I still do not see that with the academic, administrative, and research side.
Equally important, please keep in mind there is a marked difference between what the University Voice states and the opinions of people from the various publics who are constantly spouting off on message boards such as these and elsewhere. Too often what is being stated is not university policy or the official University statement on the issue by these individuals. Rather, it is their opinions that do not have basis in fact or confirmation of standing based on research. To these people, I heartily encourage them to actually do their research and be certain to include links to official websites that will actually confirm and support what they are stating. If, in fact, they do have a difference of opinion from the officially stated line, be the adult and actually connect within the University to convey your thoughts inwardly. Do not blather away in opposition, thus creating a perception of divisiveness that can be harped upon by the outside media.
I agree totally. The agenda is obvious from NJ.com and in the media sources in New Jersey.
The "miscommunication" regarding Eric's standing within the program speaks volumes as to the problem that has been experienced over the years. When there is a contact to be made regarding an event, it is imperative that the Office, Department, or organization running the event designates one person who is to be the contact for all information regarding the event. No one else to speak about the event or the standing of a person who will be part of the event.
However, do keep in mind that, historically, Rutgers - and by extension many of the people who have been involved with the University - has always attempted to stay out of the limelight and apart from the broader aspects of society. When it was forced to become an instrumentality of the State in 1956, administration, staff, faculty, students, alumni, donors, and "friends" were ill-prepared to work with the constant political machinations that go on in politics and the probing of people on the outside with marginal or no understanding of how the University functions.
But perhaps the biggest problem for Rutgers has been how to work with media in a forward-facing "universitywide" approach. I have said this for decades now. The most critical aspect of media relations is for the University to speak with "one voice." Hence, there should be only one spokesperson for the University on the academic side (E.J. Miranda) and one spokesperson on the athletics side (Jason Baum). If anyone else is quoted, they damn well better have proof they were given permission to be quoted from either the president or Chancellor/Vice-president who directly oversees their department. If not, that person is to be canned immediately.
Media Relations and Communications has waxed and waned over the course of the last 40+ years in their effort. Under Mason Gross, it was a flat-out disaster. Under Bloustein, it was better early on and then fell to pieces in the late 80's. Under Lawrence, it was middling okay. McCormick finally made the effort to tighten things up. With Barchi, stuff is slipping through the cracks way way too easily. What frustrates me about this is how willingly Greg Trevor is willing to let that happen. In media relations, it should not matter if you have Matt Drudge and Becky Quick in leadership positions or two first-year students, the Office of Media Relations and Communications should be so tightly run that the message being presented to the larger world is clear, distinctive, with brevity, but most importantly, consistent! Jason has made the effort to do that with Athletics. I still do not see that with the academic, administrative, and research side.
Equally important, please keep in mind there is a marked difference between what the University Voice states and the opinions of people from the various publics who are constantly spouting off on message boards such as these and elsewhere. Too often what is being stated is not university policy or the official University statement on the issue by these individuals. Rather, it is their opinions that do not have basis in fact or confirmation of standing based on research. To these people, I heartily encourage them to actually do their research and be certain to include links to official websites that will actually confirm and support what they are stating. If, in fact, they do have a difference of opinion from the officially stated line, be the adult and actually connect within the University to convey your thoughts inwardly. Do not blather away in opposition, thus creating a perception of divisiveness that can be harped upon by the outside media.
MKollar, what you propose is unrealistic. No matter who much an institution stresses to its employees that "you should refer all inquiries to the proper individuals," leaks happen anyway. Some employees may have their own agendas. Some may disagree with the "official version." Universities have the special problem that tenured and tenure-track professors can say what they like and can't be punished for it. Nor can students be punished. Rutgers does need to control the message better, but there's a limit to what the university can do. It helps when the university makes sound decisions that can attract support among the rank and file. Rutgers, though, doesn't seem so good at this.
Right. Honestly Marc, I'm shocked to see you write that. You know far better than most how many voices there are within just one unit of the University. If the thought is that the University administration on the whole should be better at representing its own 'official voice', then I have no problem with that idea. But there are plenty of faculty, students, and others who will always disagree with what that voice is saying, and one of the intricacies that makes universities unique is that they have those open (often nasty) discussions even when it hurts the overall message that is ultimately portrayed.
mkollar
I think you raise some good points. I do recall plenty of media snafus during McC's tenure, such as when his affair was revealed, and he didn't do a real great job responding to Clementi, Snooki or Rutgersfest situations- and those were before twitter really took off to what it is now. He also allowed Mulcahey to take the fall for what was entirely a drummed up story by the SL.
The problem is these days with Twitter, the national media catches on faster. The Rice thing was bad- but not Sandusky bad- but the SL gave it near equivalence. And the University really didn't respond well to small blips with JH, EJ, and Tyree after.
If god forbid something like Sandusky happened here, the SL would probably barricade the door to Scott Hall personally. The vendetta against the school is mindboggling.
As for JH, I support her comments. She's right. The SL pretty much has it out for the school- they are what Fox News is to Obama if Fox News demanded Obama fired his entire cabinet, and then went onto praise Kim Jong Un as a model of democracy, like SL recommends NJ students still consider PSU.
Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's not a movie or TV show.
I think you raise some good points. I do recall plenty of media snafus during McC's tenure, such as when his affair was revealed, and he didn't do a real great job responding to Clementi, Snooki or Rutgersfest situations- and those were before twitter really took off to what it is now. He also allowed Mulcahey to take the fall for what was entirely a drummed up story by the SL.
The problem is these days with Twitter, the national media catches on faster. The Rice thing was bad- but not Sandusky bad- but the SL gave it near equivalence. And the University really didn't respond well to small blips with JH, EJ, and Tyree after.
If god forbid something like Sandusky happened here, the SL would probably barricade the door to Scott Hall personally. The vendetta against the school is mindboggling.
As for JH, I support her comments. She's right. The SL pretty much has it out for the school- they are what Fox News is to Obama if Fox News demanded Obama fired his entire cabinet, and then went onto praise Kim Jong Un as a model of democracy, like SL recommends NJ students still consider PSU.
Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's not a movie or TV show.
Let me intersperse replies in parentheses. (sorry for not being smart enough to bold-face NIRh"s mind)
I think you raise some good points. I do recall plenty of media
snafus during McC's tenure, such as when his affair was revealed,
(that wasn't a media snafu. That was a McCormick snafu! (as was his drinking.) If you have an extramarital affair, it's going to get out. The best "media strategy" is to keep your hands off other women if you are married..)
and he
didn't do a real great job responding to Clementi, Snooki or
Rutgersfest situations- and those were before twitter really took off to
what it is now.
(Not sure what he could have said about any of those other than what he did. All three were complete black eyes;)
He also allowed Mulcahey to take the fall for what was
entirely a drummed up story by the SL.
(this is not my understanding. My understanding, corroborated by several people who would know, is that Mulcahy was spending money and not telling the central administration about it. That's going to get you fired in any organization.)
The problem is these days
with Twitter, the national media catches on faster. The Rice thing was
bad- but not Sandusky bad- but the SL gave it near equivalence. And the
University really didn't respond well to small blips with JH, EJ, and
Tyree after.
(Amazing you would say that. The Star-Ledger is a New Jersey newspaper. Of course it's going to jump on a New Jersey story more heavily than on a story from central Pennsylvania. )
If god forbid something like Sandusky happened
here, the SL would probably barricade the door to Scott Hall personally.
The vendetta against the school is mindboggling.
(I do not believe there is a vendetta. Rather, Rutgers makes the critical error of committing blunders that sell newspapers. I don't think *any* newspaper, except one not worthy of the name, would do anything but jump on Rutgers.)
As for JH, I
support her comments. She's right. The SL pretty much has it out for the
school- they are what Fox News is to Obama if Fox News demanded Obama
fired his entire cabinet, and then went onto praise Kim Jong Un as a
model of democracy, like SL recommends NJ students still consider PSU.
(It's not the S-L's job to do cheerleading for Rutgers. Its job, as one famous newspaperman said, is to print the news and raise hell. And no matter how correct JH's comments were, she was a damn fool for making them, particularly in a forum where there was guaranteed to be a leak. Anyone with half a brain would know that journalism students would call any contacts they had in the professional media. That's an example of a self-inflicted black eye.)
Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's not a movie or TV show.
Without question, freedom of speech and the right to speak openly and frankly regarding opinions are absolutely sacrosanct. Faculty and students speaking or writing about research or writing content for articles on any topic related to their area of study is certainly acceptable. Likewise, if they have an opposing viewpoint to University policy or wish to express dissatisfaction with a decision made by the University administration, they are certainly welcome to state what they want. But, it needs to be made clear they are speaking exclusively for themselves and not for the University in any capacity.
My issue is with those in administration and the differentiation that needs to be made between when a departmental administrator (dean, faculty chair, etc.) who is also a faculty member is attempting to speak for the University or claim to "speak for the faculty" under that title. Likewise, all - and by all I refer to everyone from a Custodial Agent III to the president - need to clearly understand they do not have any authority to speak on any topic unless specifically conveyed through prior written authorization.
The reality is that the AAUP/AFT unions make it adamantly clear that only the spokesperson for the union speaks for the union. Moreover, only those faculty or staff who are made available to the press are done so with very specific scripted comments in relation to a topic. That same approach needs to be taken by the University.
Either could have been - or more likely - a combo. He had been rejected by is parents, then he goes to college and figures he can get a fresh start on his own terms, and gets outed there too.
Camden - yes that was the issue with Rice. Ultimately the initial punishment likely did fit the crime - he was abusive, but if there were no video it would have been appropriately harsh. But there was a video and RU didnt seem to even consider the inevitable uproar. Poor understanding of the media by someone who was supposedly (but never struck me as) media savvy.
As for Hermann - meh - she was in a class and was being candid. If she cant be candid than why have her speak.
NIRH - PSU got huge coverage. People said alot about it for weeks and months. The issue isnt that no one said anything, its that the long term impact on the program was basically a net positive - they got a rallying around the flag affect AND an excuse for a couple of down years after Paterno was gone.
UNC is a different story - its news, but I really cant believe its not getting more press. I guess academics is ust boring scandals or plaudits.
She's in a class with journalism students -- people who are interested in making contacts in the profession. She has to be careful. She doesn't need to spill her innermost thoughts.
You're certainly right that only the University can speak for the University. But that's not the problem. The problem is that others within the University will give their own account of what Rutgers is doing, and why it is doing it. There's no way to prevent that. And the media person is free to imply that their accounts are more correct than the "official version." After all, do you believe Obama necessarily when he says that we are doing X for reason Y. Others are free to say, "no really Obama is doing A for reason B." That's just part of the journalistic process.
Camden
You are right that McC was scandalous in his own right in a certain way, but I'd argue that with the other situations RU needs to have their own narrative. Say with Clementi- someone should be there saying "Actually, RU has the second oldest LGBT club in the country." Get current LGBT students to speak to the media. With Snooki- well actually Wake Forest and a ton of other schools had student orgs pay her too. And with Rutgersfest, the university takes the blame from the NBPD for everything and never fights back.
And then when that happens- when Julie is honest, or Mulcahey spends money, well the SL looks the fool because their narrative has been derailed before.
I guess the difference is, at PSU and UNC everyone rallies. At RU the media tells its side and RU never does when in most of these situations, no one at RU did anything wrong.
You are right that McC was scandalous in his own right in a certain way, but I'd argue that with the other situations RU needs to have their own narrative. Say with Clementi- someone should be there saying "Actually, RU has the second oldest LGBT club in the country." Get current LGBT students to speak to the media. With Snooki- well actually Wake Forest and a ton of other schools had student orgs pay her too. And with Rutgersfest, the university takes the blame from the NBPD for everything and never fights back.
And then when that happens- when Julie is honest, or Mulcahey spends money, well the SL looks the fool because their narrative has been derailed before.
I guess the difference is, at PSU and UNC everyone rallies. At RU the media tells its side and RU never does when in most of these situations, no one at RU did anything wrong.
"scandalous in his own right in a certain way" -- I can't conceive of what you mean. Getting busted for being drunk and womanizing are scandalous period.
Your suggestions are not bad ones, but none would come close to catching up with the original story. No one is going to care that RU has the second LGBT club in the country, and I doubt if you could have gotten LGBT students to stand up for Rutgers in the wake of the Clementi suicide. The fact that other schools had had Snooki speak would have done nothing to stop the criticism of Rutgers for doing the same t hing. And engaging in a public war of words with the NBPD would never have worked, given that it was Rutgers' event.
The answer? The university has to prevent bad things from happening to the extent it can. It also needs a more positive public image generally. I don't pretend to know how to do that, but nothing tried to date has helped. Instead, RU is perceived as an institution that is just plain arrogant.
Your suggestions are not bad ones, but none would come close to catching up with the original story. No one is going to care that RU has the second LGBT club in the country, and I doubt if you could have gotten LGBT students to stand up for Rutgers in the wake of the Clementi suicide. The fact that other schools had had Snooki speak would have done nothing to stop the criticism of Rutgers for doing the same t hing. And engaging in a public war of words with the NBPD would never have worked, given that it was Rutgers' event.
The answer? The university has to prevent bad things from happening to the extent it can. It also needs a more positive public image generally. I don't pretend to know how to do that, but nothing tried to date has helped. Instead, RU is perceived as an institution that is just plain arrogant.
Well I mean that he actually did do scandalous things (like being drunk in public and having an affair) versus saying football players should donate more money.
I guess, to me, I don't see RU as a bad actor in any of the situations I named. In recent memory, their only real screw up was not firing Rice on the spot and subsequent bungling of that whole situation.
I also think you do see similar situations at other schools. Like when Snooki was paid to speak at other schools, the media in those regions didn't go wild.
I think RU should be arrogant in the sense of ignoring the stupidity and turn of our local media into a TMZ equivalency when there is so much real corruption and scandal over the state. I like what we recently did. We ignored the SL whining about Julie. Barchi right away corrected the record on EL's invite. So maybe it's getting better.
I guess, to me, I don't see RU as a bad actor in any of the situations I named. In recent memory, their only real screw up was not firing Rice on the spot and subsequent bungling of that whole situation.
I also think you do see similar situations at other schools. Like when Snooki was paid to speak at other schools, the media in those regions didn't go wild.
I think RU should be arrogant in the sense of ignoring the stupidity and turn of our local media into a TMZ equivalency when there is so much real corruption and scandal over the state. I like what we recently did. We ignored the SL whining about Julie. Barchi right away corrected the record on EL's invite. So maybe it's getting better.
Let me just give one sentence of traditional PR advice: never argue with people who buy ink by the barrel. That's particularly true when they control how your story will be channeled to the public. We don't have to give into them; ignoring them at times is the best alternative, just as you say. If I were Barchi, I'd be getting the sense (finally!) that *I* have to be the spokesman for the university.
BTW, do you have data to support what you say about Snooki and other schools?
BTW, do you have data to support what you say about Snooki and other schools?
Do not want to speak for NIRH (and not sure if this is what you were asking) but I do know thru a job related connection to the show that nobody from "The Jersey Shore" does anything for free.
And the special arrangements at Demarest Hall were around way back in the early to mid 80's so I agree with others that RU was ahead of the curve when it comes to this topic.
While many individuals thought the university used its money to pay for Snooki's appearance, the money actually did not derive from the student activities fee.
"The money used was Student Union exclusive revenue. None of the money students pay to attend the university was used to get Snooki here," Mitchell said.
Sound familiar...well it wasn't at RU...
Snooki speaks to Demon Deacons
"The money used was Student Union exclusive revenue. None of the money students pay to attend the university was used to get Snooki here," Mitchell said.
Sound familiar...well it wasn't at RU...
Snooki speaks to Demon Deacons
Let's play guess who said it and guess who published it, issues board!
"You build a university to have a reputation to help kids get good jobs. Today, it's a laughingstock ? it's Snooki U. We should be outraged," (hint: rich irony when you consider where the speaker went to school).
By the way...Snooki also spoke at Binghamton, the best regarded SUNY. Why didn't the NY papers report it, even the Post didn't...
She also spoke at JMU, which is in vogue with NJ parents these days...
It's not just football, it's a universal RU agenda...if you look at the article check out the quotes below and get ready to fear society.
"You build a university to have a reputation to help kids get good jobs. Today, it's a laughingstock ? it's Snooki U. We should be outraged," (hint: rich irony when you consider where the speaker went to school).
By the way...Snooki also spoke at Binghamton, the best regarded SUNY. Why didn't the NY papers report it, even the Post didn't...
She also spoke at JMU, which is in vogue with NJ parents these days...
It's not just football, it's a universal RU agenda...if you look at the article check out the quotes below and get ready to fear society.
I once worked at a firm that had a small committee that was privy to proprietary trade secret information. The team was referred to as the "Death Pool" because it was know if the information leaked everyone on the team would be fired.
In most organizations, this is impracticable because of the need to share information with a relatively large number of people, and you can't fire them all if one leaks. And my guess would be that there was lots of other information management wouldn't want shared other than proprietary trade secret information.
Let me add this about Hermann - the media (or rather elements within it) was after her long before her classroom talk. In a very real way, she has and had nothing to lose - the people in the media who dont like her would find something else to hang her on - but in reality none of it matters for her - she will be kept or fired based on ability to raise money for much needed improvements and even more so on the on field performance of Flood, Jordan, and possibly their predecessors if they get canned in the next year or two.
Basically she didnt pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel - she merely continued one that was ongoing.
Basically she didnt pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel - she merely continued one that was ongoing.
The media didn't like Mulcahey or Pernetti either. The media would hate anyone RU hired. That's a guarantee. And these are all over the place hires- a guy close to state government, a guy close to Schiano (also an enemy), and a lesbian with a track record of success. And all were frankly never given a fair chance- though in the end TP was the reason for his own fall.
They also hated Schiano, today they're claiming CVS is overpaid...but the funny thing is, they never went after Flood or any recent bball coaches...funny...it seems like the only people attacked actually did good things for the University...must be a coincidence.
Just wait. If we are good this year, they will rehash the Tyree allegations and go digging in Fridge's trash to see if he coached any miscreants at Maryland or in the NFL. If Flood blows it, Julie could hire Nick Saban for a fat sandwich and a coke and it will be "he lost to Louisiana Lafayette" and he's overpaid.
The Snooki coverage I linked is only one of countless examples of an agenda that not every major university deals with.
They also hated Schiano, today they're claiming CVS is overpaid...but the funny thing is, they never went after Flood or any recent bball coaches...funny...it seems like the only people attacked actually did good things for the University...must be a coincidence.
Just wait. If we are good this year, they will rehash the Tyree allegations and go digging in Fridge's trash to see if he coached any miscreants at Maryland or in the NFL. If Flood blows it, Julie could hire Nick Saban for a fat sandwich and a coke and it will be "he lost to Louisiana Lafayette" and he's overpaid.
The Snooki coverage I linked is only one of countless examples of an agenda that not every major university deals with.
Or she can do whatever she is gonna do and ignore them, which is what she seems to be doing now.
IMHO der is right that she has nothing to really lose. Worst case scenario for her is that RU fires her and she gets a big severance and goes back to Louisville, where she is beloved by Jurich and the fans a like. Best case "her way" works, she orchestrates a turnaround of RU athletics, and gets to be remember as one of the most successful AD's in the country (and also happens to be a gay woman).
Kowtowing to NJ media (who IMHO are completely unreasonable anyway) isn't going to make or break her IMHO.
SUNY Binghamton and James Madison are not exactly located in big media centers. The New York tabloids, for instance, have no idea where Binghamton is.
It's not a question of kowtowing. It's more a question of not getting into a fight unnecessarily -- a fight in which the other side has the printer's ink to attack constantly. That's what JH did. As for what fits her personal agenda, she ought not to thinking of that, but of how she can serve Rutgers (her employer) the best.
It's not a question of kowtowing. It's more a question of not getting into a fight unnecessarily -- a fight in which the other side has the printer's ink to attack constantly. That's what JH did. As for what fits her personal agenda, she ought not to thinking of that, but of how she can serve Rutgers (her employer) the best.
Binghamton isn't in a media center- BUT it is a preeminent school in the state with the biggest city in the country. Philly papers reported more on PSU than most of the other papers around the country. JMU, same thing- VA is one of the most populous states in one of the biggest markets.
The difference is that no one is looking to savage those places.
Binghamton also had their basketball coach fired for covering up players' crimes, not going to class...their President was ousted...outside of a NYT op-ed, no one talked about that, either. For the same reason.
The difference is that no one is looking to savage those places.
Binghamton also had their basketball coach fired for covering up players' crimes, not going to class...their President was ousted...outside of a NYT op-ed, no one talked about that, either. For the same reason.
