|
|
Post by JT on Jul 25, 2023 15:20:21 GMT -5
Calling a 20-some year old a "YOUNG child" (emph mine) is trashing them. As noted, they are legally adults and not children. Even with the "maturity at 25" argument, they are not YOUNG children any more. It is not trashing them, it is criticism of inexperience. And semantics, Young kid - that better? Still immature and inexperienced, and no where near adult from a professional standard. No, it's not better. "Young adult", "college-age kid", or possibly "older child" would be better. And you are trashing them, because you are making an assumption based on their age that they are inexperienced, and making presumptions about the accuracy of their reporting based on your own conjectures and guesses about what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 25, 2023 15:24:01 GMT -5
It is not trashing them, it is criticism of inexperience. And semantics, Young kid - that better? Still immature and inexperienced, and no where near adult from a professional standard. No, it's not better. "Young adult", "college-age kid", or possibly "older child" would be better. And you are trashing them, because you are making an assumption based on their age that they are inexperienced, and making presumptions about the accuracy of their reporting based on your own conjectures and guesses about what happened. You can call it trashing and be entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the matter it is criticism regarding the poor reporting and lack of context in the article that is being used for clicks because of the temperature around the topic with no other major stories going on. I am not making assumptions, anyone who has been around volleyball knows that there is context missing and they have no clue what is involved with those drills otherwise there would have been way more follow up questions. The article proves they are inexperienced, there isn't an assumption based on age - it is based on quality. The fact they can't even purchase a beer just adds to it. |
|
|
|
Post by ballvolley on Jul 25, 2023 16:40:32 GMT -5
They're asking for $50.000. IMO it'd be easier to settle for that, and take volleyball off the table as they deal with more challenging stuff in the football lawsuits. 🤔 They’re not asking for $50,000. I’m sure they will be asking for a LOT more. In Illinois when you file a civil lawsuit you are required to declare whether you are seeking in excess of $50,000 or not. The article stated they were seeking $50k in damages. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Jul 25, 2023 19:18:17 GMT -5
The article stated they were seeking $50k in damages. This may be shocking, but that article is certainly wrong. No one files a lawsuit like this and asks for a specific dollar amount. In Illinois it’s either filed as above or below $50K. There appears to be a 'point of differentiation' in Illinois state law. Civil cases for monetary damages for $50K or less are handled in the "Arbitration" division of civil court, while cases asking for damages in excess of $50k are handled in the "Law" section. A common practice would be to file asking for "unspecified damages". But apparently the way to do that in Illinois is to ask for "in excess of $50K". |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Jul 25, 2023 19:39:17 GMT -5
Having him sign something does the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. It documents and memorializes a problem and the University's awareness that a problem existed. It increases the risk of liability--which is exactly what is happening now--and I am fairly certain the HR/Legal people who drafted it understood this. So, we go back to the original question, why do you think they wanted him to sign something? Such a document would be considered a confidential personnel action and would not be available under a freedom of information request. I don't have any connection to this issue. I can see, however, based on your responses that you have no knowledge or experience in the legal or HR realm. No, I don't. I would assume because it was a write up, or written notice of possible infraction of the athletic departments guidelines involving hazing. In 2016 the NCAA posted this article with referenced links. www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/9/26/addressing-student-athlete-hazing.aspxI also wonder what the universities hazing guidelines were, surely that is something that could have been available for these inexperienced young aspiring journalists to add into their article. I still stand by that if it was bad enough they would have fired him, not offered him an extension. It is Big 10 volleyball, people would be chomping at the bit to take a job like that regardless of the school. Northwestern is not subject to FOIA requests due to being a private University. Northwestern has a no hazing policy-no tolerance for hazing among students as part of its University guidelines. I don’t know if I would call the running as punishment “hazing.” |
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Jul 31, 2023 17:39:51 GMT -5
|
|
