According to today’s WSJ story, Richard Lariviere is busy. But you know the UO Trustees want him, or someone like him, to lead UO. And I’m guessing that plenty of the 6700 faculty, staff, alumni and boosters who signed the petition to protest the 2011 firing of Lariviere are telling UO’s new Trustees that a timid paper pusher like Gottfredson is not what they want:
But first we’ve got to get rid of the interminably passive-aggressive Mike Gottfredson:
5/19/2014 update: Why Mike Gottfredson will be resigning as UO President
How much have Gottfredson and Altman hurt UO’s bond rating? Not yet clear. Obviously the fallout will cost UO millions in direct costs, but the bond raters are in this for the long game. The ratings report on UO from last year is here – it took a public records request to Ted Wheeler’s office to get it. Meanwhile, that latest rumor is that many JH staff have, unofficially, joined the unofficial “Take back our university” coalition. Apparently Gottfredson gives them even less respect than the faculty gets.
5/17/2014 update: Because he was already on thin ice, and then he gave the rape investigation report to his athletic director, instead of his police chief.
5/16/2014: Why Mike Gottfredson will be resigning
President Gottfredson’s imminent resignation is not about whether what happened on March 8th and 9th is eventually determined to be a gang rape. (And District Attorney Alex Gardner’s decision not to prosecute is just the first step in that long process.)
Bad things happen at universities. They will happen again at UO. Presidents are expected to be able to deal with bad things, competently.
The stated reason for his resignation will be “For the good of the University of Oregon, and in order to expedite the healing that must now take place …” That’s a guess, I haven’t seen the drafts yet.
The real reason will be that his attempts to keep the allegations secret, and his responses to their public disclosure, have caused immense damage to UO. More damage than timely public disclosure of the sexual violence itself would have done, if only Gottfredson had dealt with it competently.
The parents who send their children to us know that no university can completely protect them. But they expect us to do everything we can to try, and to be honest when we fail. Simple decency requires this. And thanks to the parents of Jeanne Clery, so has federal law, since 1990. And under Title IX, UO also had to follow the rules of the USDOE Office of Civil Rights. The rules published in 2011 are clear. UO must investigate allegations of sexual violence or harassment immediately, and “… the school’s inquiry must in all cases be prompt, thorough, and impartial.”
Gottfredson and the Eugene Police Department have conflicting explanations for the 16 day gap between when the EPD told UO it’s investigation report was complete and UO finally obtained the report, on April 24th. Perhaps more significantly, UO’s official timeline says that Gottfredson got the report from his General Counsel, Randy Geller, on April 28th.
The next day Geller submitted his resignation, and Gottfredson met with Athletic Director Rob Mullens to go through the investigation.
Also on the 29th, Gottfredson announced he would no longer require Mullens, or Faculty Athletics Representative Jim O’Fallon, to co-operate with the faculty Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. In it’s charge, derived from the UO Constitution, “the IAC is to be consulted by “The faculty athletics representative about all ongoing investigations ….” The next day Mullens showed the report to basketball coach Dana Altman.
In contrast, Gottfredson never told his UO police chief or investigator that the EPD report was complete. The UOPD only learned this from the newspapers, and they only got the report when they downloaded the pdf from the Register Guard’s website. Sharing the city police report with your athletic director and basketball coach, but not your own police chief, is not a “prompt, thorough” investigation.
So Gottfredson could have survived the rape, or whatever it will be called, by doing the right thing afterwards, or even by coming clean about the mistakes. Everyone knows he’s got a tough job. But he still hasn’t explained the mistakes, or even admitted that they were made. The contradictions are enough to drive a long and damaging public investigation of UO’s sitting president, while the press combs through the public records for more. But even that is not why he will resign.
He’s now been UO President for nearly two years. Plenty of time to build trust with the alumni, the donors, the Duck boosters, the faculty, the students, their parents, and the new trustees. He never really tried. His list of failures, and failed explanations, grew steadily longer.
His only real supporters were a small group of administrative insiders, on his payroll. Few of them had connections to the UO constituencies. So when this news finally broke, Gottfredson had no true friends, and a fair number of enemies.
UO’s supporters, reading about the delays in revealing the rape allegations, and Gottfredson’s post-hoc claims about the investigation and what he had been doing to address sexual violence, had to wonder what other leadership failures, related or unrelated, might next become public. I can think of several, and I’m guessing they know of others.
But our supporters knew that another failed presidency would hurt the university they loved. So they swallowed their disgust and mistrust, for the good of the university. They gave Gottfredson time – and very substantial support – to try and explain his actions.
And then, when his carefully crafted timeline and scripted speech to the Senate and his efforts to shift the blame weren’t convincing, these people decided that there was only one path forward for UO. And that’s why Mike Gottfredson will be resigning.
5/15/2014: Gottfredson’s last days are near
Word on the street is that his Executive Leadership Team and Academic Leadership Team no longer support Gottfredson. Earlier this week they were willing to wait. I can’t tell if they have learned something new about the cover up, or if they have learned that the Trustees’ patience is at an end, and now it’s time to try and save their own careers. For reference, the org chart is here, and leadership names here. [The names of those on the ELT and ALT are no longer on Gottfredson’s webpage, but they include his GC, Provost, VPFA for the ELT and the VP for Academic Affairs and the deans for the ALT.]
5/14/2014: “Take back our University” organizes to reboot UO:
That seems to be the catch-phrase. It’s a loose coalition of people and groups with diverse agendas, united by that desire. Donors, faculty, staff, students, and some administrators and politicians and Duck boosters. The only certainties so far are that it’s not going to include Mike Gottfredson, and that I’m not going to be it’s spokesperson, or even told about most of what is being planned. Which is fine with me. I’m a muckraker, and while UO needs a muckraker, it also needs good leaders out front, and others willing to work hard in private. That is starting to happen – with this horrible event and the current administration’s unacceptable response as the catalyst.
As for the rumors that step one is to “Bring Back the Hat”?
 |
 |
Totally unsubstantiated. Though I do remember that Phil Knight sort of liked the guy.
I’m not a coalition, but that won’t stop me from doing everything I can to keep your self-serving loose coalition from tearing down this university.
Our overpaid administrators are doing a fine job of destroying this University all on their own.
Tearing down this university, in order to bring back the last good one…
Just keep letting us know where and when to show up, and thanks for all you do, UO M.
You’re right, it’s hard to know what to do. But thanks for helping keep the issues alive.
Thanx for posting that picture. I teared up a little, thinking how totally different Lariviere’s press conferences and his talk to the Senate would have been.
Then I started thinking what Lariviere would have done differently from day one. Waited for the EPD report before going public, yes.
But order UOPD to help them to complete it ASAP. Get a copy of it immediately. Then get McDermod, to meet him at the airport in her SUV. Take the damn players off the plane to the PAC-12 tournament himself.
Phone in a Campus Crime Alert about an alleged gang rape of one female undergraduate by three male athletes.
Then stop by Target on the way back from the airport, buy them some new clothes, and take back every piece of Duck gear they had, down to the shirts off their backs.
That’s pure nostalgic-biased speculation. You have literally no idea what, if anything, Lariviere would have done differently.
Amid all the talk of UO sex culture, not sure what to make of this:
https://twitter.com/OregonMakeouts
The issue is not “sex culture,” it’s rape. The dividing line is consent, plain and simple. This excellent letter to the Daily Emerald makes that clear (and takes the Emerald’s editorial board to task for blurring that line with its unnecessary moralizing).
http://dailyemerald.com/2014/05/14/guest-viewpoint/
The issue is rape, but it’s still not clear that there actually was a rape in this case.
Interesting.
From the SWAT letter cited:
“consent cannot legally be given while “mentally incapacitated” — not intoxicated. The line between intoxication and incapacitation is different for everyone, but this line can be crossed. ”
“you are under the impression that consent cannot be given when drunk, this is a misconception many students have.”
Knight liked the hat, but also loved Paterno.
Not sure if much would have been different.
What would a good leader do? Maybe telling the AD that they’re doing nothing to fulfill the academic mission of the uni, and that they can kiss away any support from the academic side….
Mike Gottfredson thought he’d keep his job until and unless it could be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he was a failure.
But the correct standard is that there must be a “preponderance of the evidence” that keeping him is good for UO.
Case closed.
Please.
How about John Kitzhaber, does he still support the G-Man?
It’s not about if it was rape.
President Gottfredson’s imminent resignation will have nothing to do with whether what happened on March 8th and 9th is eventually determined to be a gang rape. (And DA Gardner’s decision not to prosecute is just the first step in that long process.) Bad things happen at universities. They will happen again at UO. Presidents are expected to be able to deal with bad things, competently.
The stated reason for his resignation will be something like “For the good of the University of Oregon, and in order to expedite the healing that must now take place …” (That’s a guess, I haven’t seen the drafts yet.)
The real reason will be that his attempts to keep the allegations secret, and his responses to their public disclosure, have caused immense damage to UO. More damage than timely public disclosure of the sexual violence itself would have, if Gottfredson had dealt with it competently.
The parents who send their children to us know that no university can completely protect them from this sort of thing. But they expect us to do everything we can to try, and to be honest when we fail. Simple decency requires this. And thanks to the parents of Jeanne Clery, so has federal law, since 1990.
So Gottfredson could have survived the rape, or whatever it will be called, by doing the right thing afterwards. Everyone knows he’s got a tough job.
But he’s now been UO President for nearly two years. Plenty of time to build trust with the alumni, the big donors, the Duck boosters, the faculty, the students, their parents, and the new trustees. But he didn’t even try. Instead his list of failures, and failed explanations, grew steadily longer.
His only real supporters were a small group of administrative insiders, on his payroll. Few of them had connections to the UO constituencies. So when this news finally broke, Gottfredson had no true friends, and a fair number of enemies.
Serious UO supporters, reading about the delays in revealing the rape allegations, and Gottfredson’s post-hoc claims about what he had been doing to address sexual violence, had to wonder what other leadership failures, related or unrelated, might next become public. I can think of several, and I’m guessing they know of others.
But UO’s supporters knew that another failed presidency would hurt the university they loved. So they swallowed their disgust and mistrust, for the good of the university. They gave Gottfredson time – and substantial support – to explain his actions.
And then, when his carefully crafted timeline and his efforts to shift the blame weren’t convincing, these people decided that enough was enough, and that there was only one path forward for UO. And that’s why Mike Gottfredson will be resigning.
Assuming your analysis is accurate, the onus is on who endorsed him for the job, and make damn sure they aren’t part of any future hire. There HAS to be an open search in the future.
Yes. And I’m pretty sure that no one in authority plans to consult with George Pernsteiner or Bob Berdahl.
The more I review the UO timeline, the clearer it is that it’s a poor attempt at whitewashing this whole thing.
March 9 – report made by father to UOPD.
March 17: UO asks Eugene police specifically if any players should be kept back from the NCAA Tournament, or if contingency plans should be made to return them to campus.
March 18: UO contacts Eugene police again to ask if the players should travel to the tournament. EPD again advises the university not to alter their plans.
March 19: President Gottfredson learns the names of the student-athletes being investigated. The president maintains the confidentiality of this information to protect the integrity of the criminal investigation.
WTF!?!?
First Gott would have us believe either that the father did not provide names to UOPD (not believable but a reporter should be able to confirm) OR that UOPD had the names but did not inform anyone who would have informed the President immediately of this pending PR disaster. Simply unbelievable.
Next, it says that UO specifically asked if any players (who they apparently don’t know the identities of) should be held from NCAA tournament. (Gott never mentioned this specific request at press conference – only after he was challenged did it show up on this “timelie”.)
They then asked again about the players on March 18.
But he didn’t know the identities until March 19? He should be fired simply for believing we are all so fucking stupid.
UO Matters, I hope you didn’t really mean to say though that his lying would be more damaging than the actual sexual assault.
The Senate should pass a motion requesting the Board to conduct an independent investigation – Gott should not be trusted to have his hands on that in any way since his actions are the ones that need investigating.
Thanks for this comment. I don’t mean that lying is worse than rape.
I mean that rape is, unfortunately, something that happens at universities. We can do things to reduce it, and we must do those things – right now – that we know will work. And we must learn what else will work, and then do that too.
But even once we do those things, there will still be rapes and sexual violence at UO. And lying about them, trying to cover them up, is totally repugnant.
I’ll try and figure out how to say that better and edit my comment.
As for “Timelie”. I like that, thanks.
Pardon my ignorance, but who/what are ELT and ALT?
You’re right, these groups, and the names and titles aren’t on his leadership website anymore. Maybe they want to hide their association with Gottfredson.
“Executive Leadership Team”: General Counsel, Provost, VP for Finance, VP for Advancement, etc.
“Academic Leadership Team”: The academic deans, VP for Academic Affairs, etc.
He meets with each group weekly, they run the university, to the extent that it is run.
I don’t see any thing wrong w/ either website.
Other than the fact that Espy is still on it, that is.
Comment of the week. Contact me for your complimentary UO Matters coffee mug.
what about the open sewer created by NIKE/Phil Knight and their sycophants?
Economists do not have a great track record at predicting events, will you remember this prediction in three months if it fails to come true? The lack of trust between the Pres and the faculty seems mostly concentrated at this website.
So first you imply he will be fired, now you say he will resign. Which one will it be?
And do you really think UO will find a suitable replacement in a timely manner?
Will be Mike Gottfredson explaining to the parents of UO’s 2014 graduating class that he did everything he was legally obligated to do to protect their children.
It’s simply not true that Gottfredson tried to “hide the allegations.” He might have tried to hide the University’s slow response, but to say that he hid the allegations themselves is completely disingenuous. The UO does not hold a press conference every time there’s a rape allegation. The claim is also nonsensical, given that the UO police report about the entire incident was public record.
Whether UO abided by Clery is a separate question. The complaint was submitted, so it’s out of anyone’s hands right now. But people who aren’t lawyers and/or familiar with the act and its enforcement should probably ask themselves whether it’s worthwhile to speculate and accuse.
Wrong. There still is not any UO Police Report. Gottfredson never even gave the EPD report to the UOPD. Chief McDermod didn’t see it until she read it in the RG. Nor was the call to the UOPD entered into the UOPD crime log. Nor was there ever any sort of UO Crime Alert sent out to warn the students.
I don’t know the procedural details and don’t for a second assume that you’re correct, but even if you are, none of those things you mention qualify as a “cover up” or show that Gott was “hiding the allegations.” It’s ludicrous to suggest anything close to that. What they show is a VERY low-level procedural failure, but how in the world are you blaming Gottfredson for that? He doesn’t work at the UOPD. It’s not his job to report or investigate alleged crimes.
The most I would ask Gott at this point is to INVESTIGATE exactly how such a failure occurred, and, as far as I know, he is doing just that.
Fortunately we won’t need to wait for Gottfredson’s “independent” investigation. The press is on this. They aren’t buying what they’ve heard so far. As on example, see http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24562253/oregon-releases-timeline-of-school-action-amid-rape-case-investigation
And there’s a long list of public records requests to UO from the NYT, USAToday, etc: http://publicrecords.uoregon.edu/requests
Why do people continue to elevate lawyers as though only they are endowed with an ability to read? And, has nobody noticed that for every lawyer speaking in support of something, there is another speaking against it? That’s sort of how things work, pretty much all the time. Can we please stop bowing to lawyers? Please?
On a related note. Have you seen our local lawyering community lately?
https://uomatters.com/2014/04/uo-law-school-prof-angry-about-plan-to-use-his-raise-for-scholarships.html
I may be missing something in the unfolding story, but I think you’re dreaming if you really think Gottfredson will resign. For one thing, having 2 failed presidents in a row (not counting Berdahl) would poison things here for hiring top administrators — UO would get a firm rep as a graveyard for academic administrative careers.
In the meantime, news is the Berwicks have given $7+ million for a new (actually, old-style) music institute as part of the Oregon Bach Festival. A refreshing break from the usual sordid stuff.
Assume Gott was on the bubble before this. A new board could easily use him as a tool to make all the changes they would want, then toss him overboard in a year or so anyway. Although the Oregonian is not putting these Sport things on the front page, ESPN, CBS, NBS, and other national news are. Gott could blame Randy for bad legal advice but I could easily see the board changing the page by accepting a few (read more than just Gott) resignations and giving some glowing press statements while they transition to their new role.
UOMatters updates about the “imminent” firing/resignations also strike me as a dream, written in a factual, alternate universe style that appears to be trying to will that scenario into reality. I have zero trust that he has insight into the mood of the ELT and ALT, for example.
The only faculty response I’ve see addressing Gott is the widely circulated e-mail arguing against the motion of no-confidence, hardly a harbinger of unanimous faculty discontent.
You really don’t have a clue about how I helped to keep that no-confidence debate and vote off the Senate agenda, do you.
The outrage about the UO coverup is related to the disgust about the increasing influence of Phil Knight that began in the Frohnmayer administration and has not abated since. Here’s the balance sheet for Matthew Knight Arena and Phil Knight Legacy Fund.
http://www.goducks.com/fls/500/pages/athlfin/2014-Legacy-Fund-Model-Update.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=500
Observations: In 2013, revenues = $7.5 million. Operating costs = $3 million. Debt service = $20 million. Net loss = $15.5 million.
Questions:
1. Subtraction from Legacy Fund in 2013= $12.5 million. Where did the other $3 million come from to make up the $15.5 million difference between Arena revenues and costs?
2. The Legacy Fund had $50 million contributed in 2010 and $25 million for each year 2011-2013.
I thought Phil Knight gave $100 million in 2010. That’s not true. Which subset of the total of $125 million over 4 years came from Phil?
3. The Legacy fund balance at the end of 2013 was $80 million. The annual deficit of Matthew Knight Arena averages about $15 million. At this rate, the Fund will be exhausted by 2020. The bonds won’t be paid back until 2040. Where will the $15 million/year come from between 2020 and 2040?
Ah, ghost, perhaps my friendly, helpful finance guy can help us out.
“For starters — and the main point — the Legacy fund had income from its investments — $6.9 million, near the bottom of the first page of their balance sheet — to partially offset the withdrawal of $12.5 million for the bond servicing. So the actual loss to the Legacy fund was more like $5.6 million — whilst the fund has grown to over $80 million (admittedly, with recent annual contributions that may not continue at as high a level). So, there is little danger of the fund going broke any time soon, it is certainly not being drawn down at an alarming rate at this time.
I’m told that the wizards on the old senate budget committee figured this out years ago, assuming conservative revenue scenarios (unlike the nonsense coming from the AD’s hired moonshiners in LA). They determined that even in very unfavorable economic times — which promptly arrived — with the Legacy fund (but only with it) — the bonds would be in little danger of default. I hear that Lariviere was later appreciative of their accurate and wise assessment.
The projected total funds out to 2038 certainly look pretty favorable.
For what it’s worth, one thing I don’t think Phil Knight would ever allow is for the arena named after his son to be the cause of financial embarrassment to UO.”
Amazing how the well really is dry at least on 2/3 of the balance sheet. The only thing holding was the tuition and I am very interested in seeing how much of an effect the recent press will have on the 16-18 year old future students and the parents who are footing the bill. Perhaps for a few more or less dollars OSU, UDUB, UC, CU, or even SOU will seem a little better.
That leaves the Boosters and Admin piling on debt for buildings we do not need and Goldman already on campus with a dump truck of effluent debt to unload; and a research infrastructure that looks more like Eastern Oregon than an AAU research school after a decade neglect.
Dear UO Trustees, It is time to clean house and the the affairs of the institution we all care about in order.
We are the University of Oregon.
I think it important for readers of this blog to understand that what is going on here is a witch hunt. Target somebody, imply that lots of people are against that person, claim that powerful bodies (the ELT, the ALT) are behind you, and then use all that to whip everyone into a frenzy. There were more than 100 people in the room on Wednesday afternoon when Gottfredson spoke to the Senate. My guess is that 95% of them left the room thinking that Gottfredson was doing a reasonable job in the face of a terrible situation (while recognizing that we do not, and cannot, have the information we need to know for sure) and anxious to work together with the current administration to address the situation. That was the tenor of the exchange in the room, and that’s what many people were saying in the hallways afterwards. (Of course a few commenters on this blog will probably dispute this characterization, but remember that a hundred people were there; if in doubt about what happened, please ask someone who attended.)
But of course within minutes of the end of the meeting the blog campaign begins–initially with questions that implied a very different tone to the Senate meeting from the one described above, and then increasingly in recent days with posts that conform to the witch hunt mode. I am not in the administration and I have never held an administrative post. I have chatted with a few people on the ELT and the ALT, though — people who know far more about this incident than the rest of us do — and they are uniformly supportive of Gottfredson. But truth doesn’t matter in a witch hunt. Spreading the rumor that the ELT and the ALT have turned against the President is all you need if your audience does not bring a healthy level of skepticism to the table.
I don’t know enough to comment in any substantive way on how this whole situation was handled, and neither does UOMatters. But it is appalling to see the tactics of the sort we are seeing on this blog being deployed on our campus. This blog at times has shed some useful light on developments at UO, but whatever you may think of Gottfredson’s presidency, to see what is going on here is scary.
I couldn’t agree more with Anon. If UOMatters used just a tiny bit of objectivity and professionalism, we could have a useful resource for information. But if Jesus Christ were our next President, UOMatters would call for his firing before he could even do that water into wine thing. Witch hunt, rumor mill, gossip, that’s all we have here folks.
By your own admission, you don’t know enough to comment in any substantive way on how this while situation was handled, and yet you make comment, unhappy with bloggers here because you perceive them as unknowing as you and rocking your tidy boat. Plus, you’re sure UOM doesn’t know much by some prescient *chatting*, and you’re *guessing* 95% of Wednesday’s audience thinks Gottfredson was doing a reasonable job.
So, while going on your own little witch hunt, you really don’t know anything much at all, do you?
I’ve updated this post with this:
And thanks to the parents of Jeanne Clery, so has federal law, since 1990. And under Title IX, UO also had to follow the rules of the USDOE Office of Civil Rights. The rules published in 2011 are clear. UO must investigate allegations of sexual violence or harassment immediately, and “… the school’s inquiry must in all cases be prompt, thorough, and impartial.”
Gottfredson and the Eugene Police Department have conflicting explanations for the 16 day gap between when the EPD told UO it’s investigation report was complete and UO finally obtained the report, on April 24th. Perhaps more significantly, UO’s official timeline says that Gottfredson got the report from his General Counsel, Randy Geller, on April 28th. The next day Geller submitted his resignation, and Gottfredson met with Athletic Director Rob Mullens to go over it.
In contrast, Gottfredson never told his UO police chief or investigator that the EPD report was complete. The UOPD only learned this from the newspapers, and they only got the report when they downloaded the pdf from the Register Guard’s website. Sharing the city police report with your athletic director and basketball coach, but not your own police chief, is not a “prompt, thorough” investigation.
BTW: I’ve posted most of the comments I’ve received, critical and supportive, vitriolic or fawning. Including multiple examples from a few readers. At this point I’ll only post additional comments if they say something new, or at least repeat something old with new language. Klingon is fine. If you don’t like that, please just put your comments on the official UO “Around the O” blog post about Gottfredson’s timeline, here: http://around.uoregon.edu/content/uo-releases-detailed-timeline-actions-following-march-9-allegation
Thanks.
Ha’ rape allegations yuvtlhe’ Gottfredson ‘ej DaH yuvtlhe’ ghaH Ha’ botched investigation.
Klingonese? I’ve lived too long.
Lariviere wasn’t controllable and that’s the reason he was “let go”. While making a dramatic claim appearing to support him and effectively and dramatically buying time with faculty and donors, Berdahl as appointed as interim (resulting in the appointment of Gottfredson) which actually cemented the desired control. Only the union is the wild hare. Long live wild hares!
The hat wanted UO to become independent from state politicians, and his mechanism to do so was to fasten nearly $1billion in debt onto UO. He didn’t want Salem telling him what to do, but he seemingly had no problem having Wall Street telling him what to do. Maybe he should have asked recent grads how much independence they gained when they had tens of thousands of $$$ in debt dumped on their balance sheets…..
The hat wanted to succeed, period. Big ego, which couldn’t find a place with about half a dozen other Oregon big egos. Being fired was quite a coup.
He hated me. But it was a clean, well-lighted hate.
LOL! Not sure I’ve experienced well-lighted hate? I can only imagine the experience. My experiences? Pure hate and dread. ;)
If chuck is correct and the hat wanted to pursue Wall Street (which is happening now, right?), then one has to ask who would best profit from UO becoming independent then (and now). I mean, which pursuing donors and foundation members stood to gain from Lariviere then, and who would actually profit from someone like him now? Key word: profit.
Correction: my experiences of hate in life, not in relation to Lariviere.
I torn whether or not I should up vote you for the obscure Papa reference…..
“But you know the UO Trustees want him, or someone like him, to lead UO”
They do? Got any elaboration for why this might be so?
Will you please take down that Gottfredson video? Watching it makes me feel dirty for having to work for him.
Round & round this discussion goes. I could barely stand to listen to the Gott speech. His soft spoken drivel gave me the heebie jeebies, but he is masterful at not really answering questions much. Nobody seems to have called them out on that Altman press conference which was closed to students & faculty. That really added insult to injury. Granted what he said was scripted & minimalist, but still, they are running scared & the students are certainly not buying the story & the more silent the admin is about this, the worse the situation becomes. Looks like the GTF’s have voted to strike, so your blog writing is not just rumors. At least you have something to say, unlike the admin & athletic department top dogs, who remain silent. Will they expel these students, or at least officially announce scholarships are revoked? What is on the line? Losing Federal funding & or being out on the dreaded worst colleges list, for botched responses to sexual assault. Getting sued by the players. Student revolt, as they will no longer tolerate the questionable timelines, and probably worst of all, tarnishing the brand, which was all shiny & profitable. One gets the sense they are not protecting student privacy, as much as they are focused on covering their own asses.
*Addendum to the above:
• Students not tolerating the top admin deciding to not give students warning of the incident- thus endangering them. Failure to doing timely reporting to the U of O police. Failing the students in general.
• When I said “worst of all, tarnishing the brand” I mean from admin & athletic department perspectives. They are all about revenues & winning games which yields huge bonuses, and marketing & merchandising. “The franchise” if you will.
Of course the worst of all was the sexual assault.