• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I think we're officially over the edge...

Chillfolks said:
Do you think the school would admit it was over social media opening up possible lawsuits?
Click to expand...
That's a fair argument, but I've seen no evidence to that effect; do you have any?
 
lwf said:
That's not their responsibility. They probably don't want to risk the person they just suspended turning around suing them for publicizing his personnel records just to refute an obviously bogus story he's telling everyone as to why he was suspended.
Click to expand...
I agree they fear a possible lawsuit.
 
Chomsky said:
Oh geez, a Fox opinion piece? :doh

For your own good, you've got to start using direct sources ...
Click to expand...

Actually, the source I used in the OP leaned on the campus newspapers account of events. Th Fox opinion piece is a contrary opinion to that of the OP.

Balance.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Because they go on to say that "they are reviewing concerns expressed by the campus community".

Just what do you suppose suddenly aroused concerns over this guy being able to perform his job?
Click to expand...

"Reviewing concerns expressed by the campus community" means exactly nothing, other than the school takes all concerns seriously. Concerns over his ability to perform his job could have arisen over any number of things, and it is irresponsible to speculate one way or another. One thing we do know, however, is that the concerns weren't raised over his twitter activity. At least, according to the source you provided.
 
Chomsky said:
That's a fair argument, but I've seen no evidence to that effect; do you have any?
Click to expand...
The lack of any evidence thos chief has done anything to question thw trust placed in him is my big sticking point. There could be a legitimate cause for concern, and woild like the school to provide it if available.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Here is what they said...



And just what do you suppose aroused the "concerns" of the campus community? I'll save you the suspense... he liked some Trump and NRA tweets.
Click to expand...
The bolded is conjecture on your part, though the Tweets may have brought students forward.

But again, so what? It's a private university.
 
Chillfolks said:
I agree they fear a possible lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Chances are they will sit him down and work something out to avoid any more bad publicity. He may have successfully played the "Trump card."
 
Chillfolks said:
The lack of any evidence thos chief has done anything to question thw trust placed in him is my big sticking point. There could be a legitimate cause for concern, and woild like the school to provide it if available.
Click to expand...

Get your BP checked......only so much outrage is good for a body.
 
lwf said:
"Reviewing concerns expressed by the campus community" means exactly nothing, other than the school takes all concerns seriously. Concerns over his ability to perform his job could have arisen over any number of things, and it is irresponsible to speculate one way or another. One thing we do know, however, is that the concerns weren't raised over his twitter activity. At least, according to the source you provided.
Click to expand...

From the second source I provided in post #2...

The student who blew the trigger whistle said, it was "Unacceptable for someone in charge of keeping any community safe, let alone a campus as diverse as MHC's, to be publicly displaying his support for hateful regimes and organizations, as well as for individuals who demonize migrants from Mexico or other Latin American nations.”

After that, the campus went so far as to host a forum in which Hect could be grilled by students as to why he DARE appear to be a conservative.

Hect even APOLOGIZED for liking tweets which showed support for the border wall.

But even that wasn’t enough, he was still forced to take leave.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Actually, the source I used in the OP leaned on the campus newspapers account of events. Th Fox opinion piece is a contrary opinion to that of the OP.

Balance.
Click to expand...
I guess. I prefer "facts" though, seeing no reason to listen to opinion or partisanship.
 
Chomsky said:
The bolded is conjecture on your part, though the Tweets may have brought students forward.

But again, so what? It's a private university.
Click to expand...

It's not conjecture. There are actual facts in the Fox opinion piece that are relevant...

The student who blew the trigger whistle said, it was "Unacceptable for someone in charge of keeping any community safe, let alone a campus as diverse as MHC's, to be publicly displaying his support for hateful regimes and organizations, as well as for individuals who demonize migrants from Mexico or other Latin American nations.”

After that, the campus went so far as to host a forum in which Hect could be grilled by students as to why he DARE appear to be a conservative.

Hect even APOLOGIZED for liking tweets which showed support for the border wall.

But even that wasn’t enough, he was still forced to take leave.
Click to expand...

This whole ordeal is a reaction to him liking tweets.
 
Rexedgar said:
Get your BP checked......only so much outrage is good for a body.
Click to expand...
Don't you got a cross to burn or more black folks earing chicken jokes to entertain you and your racist friends.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
From the second source I provided in post #2...
Click to expand...

That opinion piece certainly makes it sound like he was being treated unfairly in response to liking some tweets. But the school asserts that there were reasons to question his trustworthiness to police the students that were unrelated to his social media accounts. Without speculating too much, this sounds like just the type of thing that might lead to immediate suspension and investigation and the reasons for said suspension would not be expected to be immediately publicly disclosed as much for the protection of his reputation as the school's.

This is a dog whistle that conservative talking heads have jumped on in order to fan the flames of hatred and exploit the fears of their impressionable audience to always blindly vote Republican.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It's not conjecture. There are actual facts in the Fox opinion piece that are relevant...



This whole ordeal is a reaction to him liking tweets.
Click to expand...
It is conjecture, on your part.

For all you know, after the Tweets the students may have petitioned to have him removed. Or the administration may have taken a vote of 'no confidence' on him. There's a lot that could be going-on here, all within the school's legal prerogative.
 
lwf said:
That opinion piece certainly makes it sound like he was being treated unfairly in response to liking some tweets. But the school asserts that there were reasons to question his trustworthiness to police the students that were unrelated to his social media accounts. Without speculating too much, this sounds like just the type of thing that might lead to immediate suspension and investigation and the reasons for said suspension would not be expected to be immediately publicly disclosed as much for the protection of his reputation as the school's.

This is a dog whistle that conservative talking heads have jumped on in order to fan the flames of hatred and exploit the fears of their impressionable audience to always blindly vote Republican.
Click to expand...
The thing is, after the Tweets and further investigation, does the administration have confidence in him? Do the students accept his authority?

His responsibility goes beyond merely staying within the 1st A statutes.
 
Mr Person said:
Shame you omitted the next sentence:


Mount Holyoke President Sonya Stephens, writing on the college’s website, said “social media is not the reason he was placed on leave. We are reviewing several concerns and cannot comment further on personnel issues.”
Click to expand...


Makes one wonder what those "concerns" are when the guy was less than 2 months at his job when he got suspended. /s

My guess is: wrong gender and pale skin pigmentation, coupled with conservative outlook - definitely a no-no on all-female liberal arts campuses.

Smollett would have been the perfect candidate for their police chief position. :lamo
 
Chillfolks said:
The lack of any evidence thos chief has done anything to question thw trust placed in him is my big sticking point. There could be a legitimate cause for concern, and woild like the school to provide it if available.
Click to expand...
For all you know, the students may already have expressed their distrust for him in various forms. And the administration may have lost confidence in him.

The big point is, it doesn't matter. It's a private institution.
 
ImpracticalSnarlingBuck-size_restricted.gif
 
Chomsky said:
For all you know, the students may already have expressed their distrust for him in various forms. And the administration may have lost confidence in him.
The big point is, it doesn't matter. It's a private institution.
Click to expand...


Yeah; the "distrust" started the day he announced on twitter about the new position he's gonna start ... 2 months later he's suspended.

I must say, those girls worked fast. :lol:
 
Chomsky said:
That's not according to the university.

But even if so, so what? It's a private school.
Click to expand...

Come now...I know you aren't so naïve to believe them at their world, and you know it. You know that Jack is right in that it's going to be a matter of outrage in response to his social media activity. Now, you're right in pointing out that it's a private school so there won't be a legal issue here but is that the limit of your concern here with the story? Just that it was legal?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Here is what they said...



And just what do you suppose aroused the "concerns" of the campus community? I'll save you the suspense... he liked some Trump and NRA tweets.
Click to expand...
His liking some tweets could just be an indicator. For all you know he spent all day bitching about "the ****ing Mexicans and Muslims". Still, his choice to shut down his social media and the school's choice to hire or fire their staff. No explanation needed.
 
Chomsky said:
It is conjecture, on your part.

For all you know, after the Tweets the students may have petitioned to have him removed. Or the administration may have taken a vote of 'no confidence' on him. There's a lot that could be going-on here, all within the school's legal prerogative.
Click to expand...

According to the Fox piece, the students did call for his removal and the request was obliged. Sure, it's within the schools prerogative, but what the hell are we turning into when liking a tweet becomes grounds to lose your job?

I honestly HOPE that there is more to this but, sadly, it appears to be just that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom