Frank's Statement

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:15 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:11 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 6:54 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 9:56 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 9:44 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 9:20 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm
Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?
#2
So how does that work?
Because I can't see ~85 players, with different thoughts and feelings, conspiring together to unite in a conspiracy to make false claims and refuse to play their final game of the year.
Or are you saying that you think they inferred a meaning that Cockett didn't intend, and overreacted ( rather than lying)?
5-10 guys participated. One guy pushed it. The 5-10 are leadership guys. Trusted. Official. Everybody else, including McFadden, presume accuracy of perception by the 5-10. They would or should all admit that they don't know.

It's irresponsible to assert that 100+ guys know what is alleged to have happened.

I suspect one-three bad actors here and a whole lot of goeralongers.
Participated in what? In actions stemming from a misunderstanding, or conspiring to invent a malicious falsehood?

Seems irresponsible to impugn all these because your nose says so... these players are using more than that in their claims against President Cockett.
5-10 guys on the leadership council participated in the video call. One guy sent out the poll to the rest of those 4-9 guys. That's how it started. Please keep up. This is public stuff. The only thing I haven't been able to find is who and how many on the council. Only one name is clear: M. S. Bond, Esq.
Be clear - are you accusing them of action stemming from a misunderstanding, or malicious and deliberate falsehood? There's a HUGE difference.

Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.

If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » December 14th, 2020, 7:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Do you feel Frank didn't get the job because he's a Polynesian Mormon?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 7:46 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Do you feel Frank didn't get the job because he's a Polynesian Mormon?

Yes, by all means, let's discuss the true facts at the heart of the matter.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 8:00 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Do you feel Frank didn't get the job because he's a Polynesian Mormon?

I don't, no. But this isn't about me and what I think/feel.

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » December 14th, 2020, 8:00 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 9:44 pm

JSHarvey wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 9:20 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2020, 3:37 pm
Those of you that are upset, are you upset because:
1. You don't feel discrimination exists at USU
2. You don't believe the players
3. You acknowledge discrimination likely exists, but don't think anything should happen about it

Other?
#2
So how does that work?
Because I can't see ~85 players, with different thoughts and feelings, conspiring together to unite in a conspiracy to make false claims and refuse to play their final game of the year.
Or are you saying that you think they inferred a meaning that Cockett didn't intend, and overreacted ( rather than lying)?

I don't know how many students athletes are on the Leadership Council, but I do know it is a very small subset of the whole team. I know that nothing was mentioned until several days after the meeting. I know that President Cockett is an individual who has worked hard to protect diversity and human dignity at the USU. She is also an exceptionally smart individual who simply wouldn't say what was alleged to have been said.

That leads me to believe that she said something which the students athletes didn't want to hear and that as they (the student athletes) talked back and forth for a few days it grew into something very different than what was said. That version of the meeting was then passed on to the rest of the team as an outrage which had to be responded to. Most of the team didn't hear what was said (because they are not part of the Leadership Council members who were on the call), and they had *no way* of confirming what was said.

Somewhere along the line someone outside of the team began both agitating and organizing - and USU ends up with a potential lawsuit, a cancelled game, and a "statement" by a jilted coach that just fans the flames.

All of that is why I think the story the students (were sold) and are now telling is incorrect. JMO

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.

I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?

Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?

The resistance to answer is answer enough.

CastIronAggie · Post by **CastIronAggie** » December 14th, 2020, 8:58 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:00 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Do you feel Frank didn't get the job because he's a Polynesian Mormon?
I don't, no. But this isn't about me and what I think/feel.

All that matters is whether or not he was or wasn't discriminated against and what she did or did not say. Accusations of racial and religious discrimination are serious and can ruin someone's life. If you are going to put those accusations forward, you damn well better be right. If you are wrong, you just ruined someone's life under false pretenses.

You want to know why people on this board tend to ere on the side of the accused when there is no proof? It's because any one of us could be accused of something similar without actually doing it and we would lose our livelihoods and reputations. It's because I know people who have had their lives ruined over accusations that were proven false. Serious allegations require serious proof, and we've seen none.

That's the reason these accusations are so troubling. Non specific, vague and possibly misunderstood. Even if she said what they claim(whatever the hell that is) these young men went about it in the absolute wrong manner. Accusations like this needs to be specific with no room for speculation by media and fan boards like this. As it stands, her reputation is now ruined now matter the outcome of the investigation. Speculation runs rampant because the accusers refuse to say what is is they are accusing her of. Every minute that passes where they don't put out a quote that they claim she said, I lose a little more respect for them.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.

If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

NVAggie · Post by **NVAggie** » December 14th, 2020, 9:27 am

We always argue these types of things without all the facts. I understand that the purpose of a fan board is to argue, vent, get excited, etc. I just hope that people aren't as mad as their posts would indicate. Unless you actually know what was said, you have no clue how one should feel.

Obviously, something is weird about this whole thing. Cockett has been a good president, but she isn't infallible. I wouldn't expect her to make this type of mistake, but it isn't impossible. The players have under-performed this year. They have been a mess for the most part. I understand why people would be quick to dismiss their statement, especially in the world of protest we have today. If religion or race were discussed, they have every right to be upset. That is completely separate from their being upset about Maile not being head coach. Maile has always represented himself and his family well. He is an Aggie. We have all applauded his recruiting. Players seem to really like him. It doesn't mean he wouldn't look for an easy pay day.

We just really don't know. Let's argue, but don't get too worked up until you actually have some facts. The reality is that we probably will never know.

El Sapo · Post by **El Sapo** » December 14th, 2020, 9:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

I think you captured in legal terms what I believe. Frank doesn't have a case

How can Frank connect the zoom meeting to himself. Sure the players / Cockett discussed him. But there was no action. Is that enough for legal action against the school by Frank? Successful legal action?

El Sapo · Post by **El Sapo** » December 14th, 2020, 9:37 am

The players assert Utah State University is prejudiced against Mormons.

Say that aloud a few times.

AgMac · Post by **AgMac** » December 14th, 2020, 10:05 am

CastIronAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:58 am

All that matters is whether or not he was or wasn't discriminated against and what she did or did not say. Accusations of racial and religious discrimination are serious and can ruin someone's life. If you are going to put those accusations forward, you damn well better be right. If you are wrong, you just ruined someone's life under false pretenses.

You want to know why people on this board tend to ere on the side of the accused when there is no proof? It's because any one of us could be accused of something similar without actually doing it and we would lose our livelihoods and reputations. It's because I know people who have had their lives ruined over accusations that were proven false. Serious allegations require serious proof, and we've seen none.

That's the reason these accusations are so troubling. Non specific, vague and possibly misunderstood. Even if she said what they claim(whatever the hell that is) these young men went about it in the absolute wrong manner. Accusations like this needs to be specific with no room for speculation by media and fan boards like this. As it stands, her reputation is now ruined now matter the outcome of the investigation. Speculation runs rampant because the accusers refuse to say what is is they are accusing her of. Every minute that passes where they don't put out a quote that they claim she said, I lose a little more respect for them.

This is a good post and echoes what I've been saying from the beginning. It isn't ok to lobby such serious accusations without disclosing what was said. Ask the Jazz fan who will probably get a big check from Russell Westbrook and the Utah Jazz.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.

Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » December 14th, 2020, 10:39 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?

You say that you are unsure if Frank would have gotten the job if he was non-mormon and not Polynesian. That's where me and others are so out of line with you.
Frank's work record, what he brings to the table, his past performance are all SO FAR from the qualification needed for this position it isn't even close.
You don't see it the same way. You feel Frank was qualified to be the HC. There's a huge gap between our views on this.

In hindsight, giving Frank a courtesy interview was a huge mistake as it created a false sense of hope and a false sense that he was qualified for the role. He simply isn't, and in my mind that has been born out by his actions.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 10:42 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?
I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

Yes circumstance where discrimination could be a roadblock for us is difficult to imagine. This is why it's hard for us to understand why the players reacted the way they did.
They perceived a discriminatory barrier. For many of them, a discriminatory barrier to their livelihood is all too real. For them, the stakes are very high.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 10:46 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:39 am
You say that you are unsure if Frank would have gotten the job if he was non-mormon and not Polynesian. That's where me and others are so out of line with you.

No. What has given you that idea? I don't think he would have gotten the job no matter what his religion or race. Thinking that this situation as ONLY about Frank is an error.

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:39 am
Frank's work record, what he brings to the table, his past performance are all SO FAR from the qualification needed for this position it isn't even close.
You don't see it the same way. You feel Frank was qualified to be the HC. There's a huge gap between our views on this.

No there's not. I think this is not just about Frank.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » December 14th, 2020, 10:48 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:42 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?
I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.
Yes circumstance where discrimination could be a roadblock for us is difficult to imagine. This is why it's hard for us to understand why the players reacted the way they did.
They perceived a discriminatory barrier. For many of them, a discriminatory barrier to their livelihood is all too real. For them, the stakes are very high.

Or, FM had created a divisive us versus them mentality in the locker room. I've seen this play out on Sales teams, so I don't think it would have been a stretch here. FM got mis-treated in the hiring of GA (in his mind) and cultivated an us versus the man... I'll protect you guys from them... the bad guy..... The AD.... The President... The University.
They are racist, they don't care about you, they don't listen. They won't hire me because of these things.
They love FM as their "protector," but consequently begin to miss trust and hate the University and its administration.
This leads to an incendiary environment that is just waiting for the faintest spark to set the whole thing ablaze.

All of this is a leadership tactic that is as destructive as anything I've ever witnessed.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » December 14th, 2020, 10:51 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:46 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:39 am
You say that you are unsure if Frank would have gotten the job if he was non-mormon and not Polynesian. That's where me and others are so out of line with you.
No. What has given you that idea? I don't think he would have gotten the job no matter what his religion or race. Thinking that this situation as ONLY about Frank is an error.
Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:39 am
Frank's work record, what he brings to the table, his past performance are all SO FAR from the qualification needed for this position it isn't even close.
You don't see it the same way. You feel Frank was qualified to be the HC. There's a huge gap between our views on this.
No there's not. I think this is not just about Frank.

Just above you said you didn't know if Frank would have gotten the job if he was a white non-mormon. That tells me that you feel he was at least qualified enough for there to be a question mark?

Empire of Dirt · Post by **Empire of Dirt** » December 14th, 2020, 10:54 am

So I was recently passed over for a position that I (and others that I work with) thought I had earned. I felt like there were politics (discrimination) involved.

So, what were the stakes? High, I guess?

So what did I do?

I love my company and they have taken care of me well throughout the years, so I rallied all of my allies who had expressed support. Together we contacted key customers and told them that we were going under and had significant quality concerns. We threw my boss under the buss and called her a racist. Also, we sabotaged some key products and made sure that they failed in the field. I thought it was the only appropriate response since the stakes were so high.

Ok, not really... I supported the new person, continued to work hard for my paycheck, and kept my eyes open for the next opportunity.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 10:54 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:48 am
Or, FM had created a divisive us versus them mentality in the locker room. I've seen this play out on Sales teams, so I don't think it would have been a stretch here. FM got mis-treated in the hiring of GA (in his mind) and cultivated an us versus the man... I'll protect you guys from them... the bad guy..... The AD.... The President... The University.
They are racist, they don't care about you, they don't listen. They won't hire me because of these things.
They love FM as their "protector," but consequently begin to miss trust and hate the University and its administration.
This leads to an incendiary environment that is just waiting for the faintest spark to set the whole thing ablaze.

All of this is a leadership tactic that is as destructive as anything I've ever witnessed.

So you invent a story and accuse Frank with imaginations? The players have more substance to their accusations than you do. Maybe we should stay clear of speculation.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » December 14th, 2020, 10:55 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:54 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:48 am
Or, FM had created a divisive us versus them mentality in the locker room. I've seen this play out on Sales teams, so I don't think it would have been a stretch here. FM got mis-treated in the hiring of GA (in his mind) and cultivated an us versus the man... I'll protect you guys from them... the bad guy..... The AD.... The President... The University.
They are racist, they don't care about you, they don't listen. They won't hire me because of these things.
They love FM as their "protector," but consequently begin to miss trust and hate the University and its administration.
This leads to an incendiary environment that is just waiting for the faintest spark to set the whole thing ablaze.

All of this is a leadership tactic that is as destructive as anything I've ever witnessed.
So you invent a story and accuse Frank with imaginations? The players have more substance to their accusations than you do. Maybe we should stay clear of speculation.

Do they? What was said?

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:42 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?
I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.
Yes circumstance where discrimination could be a roadblock for us is difficult to imagine. This is why it's hard for us to understand why the players reacted the way they did.
They perceived a discriminatory barrier. For many of them, a discriminatory barrier to their livelihood is all too real. For them, the stakes are very high.

Oh, waaaa. You're back on mob rule feelings based dispute resolution. Feelings gets people cannonaded inside Nauvoo. Feelings gets expeditionary forces schlepped across the Rockies because a whoremonger masquerading as a judge got run out of a frontier town.

And you're flipping back to the players from Frank. You infer universal good faith. I sincerely doubt the ringleader(s)'s bona fides.

I think we would agree that there's a highly probable case for compassion for an individual leading to utter lack of compassion for president, AD, team, school, community, alumni, along with generalized race-based resentments motivating a goodly number of the ~100. But then again perhaps not. Perhaps there's absolutely nothing we could agree on.

3rdGenAggie · Post by **3rdGenAggie** » December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:42 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:30 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?
I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.
Yes circumstance where discrimination could be a roadblock for us is difficult to imagine. This is why it's hard for us to understand why the players reacted the way they did.
They perceived a discriminatory barrier. For many of them, a discriminatory barrier to their livelihood is all too real. For them, the stakes are very high.

Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 11:00 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:51 am
Just above you said you didn't know if Frank would have gotten the job if he was a white non-mormon. That tells me that you feel he was at least qualified enough for there to be a question mark?

That's not what I said. You're inferring things not in my words and not implied (like what the players did I'm guessing).

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:43 am
Do you feel Frank didn't get the job because he's a Polynesian Mormon?
I don't, no. But this isn't about me and what I think/feel.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am
Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.

Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?

3rdGenAggie · Post by **3rdGenAggie** » December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am
Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.
Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?

Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?

BleedAggieBlue0 · Post by **BleedAggieBlue0** » December 14th, 2020, 11:14 am

El Sapo wrote:The players assert Utah State University is prejudiced against Mormons.

Say that aloud a few times.

That is not the players claim at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BleedAggieBlue0 · Post by **BleedAggieBlue0** » December 14th, 2020, 11:16 am

USU78 wrote:
brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:12 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 9:16 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:53 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:43 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 8:03 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:33 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:27 am

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 7:20 am
Excellent question. It's answer in full would require pages and rabbit holes. Short answer: the response to a likely misunderstanding is grossly out of proportion to the stakes presented at the time of the video chat. I infer malice from that response and the follow-up.
If you feel discrimination against you, or others like you, impedes life or livelihood, how high are the stakes?
"Feels" yet again. And we return to the law of the mob.
I'll rephrase, and this time, please answer the question. If you perceive that discrimination against you, others like you, impedes your pursuit for life and livelihood, how high are the stakes?
Apples to apples: I want a job my prior job experience demonstrates I'm unsuited for.

What was the question again?
The resistance to answer is answer enough.
If I am angry under circumstances where I don't get a job I'm unqualified and unsuited for it doesn't matter what I call the source of my anger. I'm objectively deluding myself. I'm objectively cursing G-d who made me thus. My feelings are irrelevant because there is no causal nexus between them and the true reason for my unhappiness.

The useless interview he was granted, raising his hopes, has far more to do with his mental and emotional state than anything said to third parties.

Yet it too is irrelevant.
Would you like to take a longer walk around the question?

If you perceived a discriminatory impedance to your livelihood, how high would those stakes be for you?
I reject your premise. That's what you aren't getting. My facing actual discrimination in employment or hiring is irrelevant to Frank's situation. He was promoted far beyond his abilities. He was turned down for the head job because neither his prior job performance nor his resume nor his temperament qualified him for the USU head man position.

And none of that matters in the slightest if they said what some are claiming they said. All that matters is whether or not it was said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 14th, 2020, 11:20 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am
Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.
Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?
Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?

It seems that it's harder for minorities to get opportunities that build their resumes. I think Frank turned down a lot of opportunities that would have helped him build his, so I don't know that it has anything to do with him specifically. To the players, this isn't just about Frank.

3rdGenAggie · Post by **3rdGenAggie** » December 14th, 2020, 11:25 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:20 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:04 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 11:03 am

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
December 14th, 2020, 10:57 am
Frank made several times my yearly salary last year and I'm white. I'm not sure I understand how that happened with race being such a major factor in hiring in this country.
Take a look around the D1 football landscape. How many minority head coaches do you see? Considering how many minorities have been playing football for the past several decades (since they were allowed to play with white people), do you think the numbers align?
Probably not, although it's getting better and I hope to see that trend continue. What does that have to do with Frank not being hired?
It seems that it's harder for minorities to get opportunities that build their resumes. I think Frank turned down a lot of opportunities that would have helped him build his, so I don't know that it has anything to do with him specifically. To the players, this isn't just about Frank.

Right, it's about an already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer as well. There are posts on this board that explain what happened with that incident and why the outside party investigating it determined there was no need for further concern. Included in those posts is the assertion that the alleged "victim" did not have a problem with the trainer.

That already-put-to-bed incident with a trainer was used to cast the entire program/university in unsavory light in an attempt to strengthen their currently evidence-less accusation.

Unless you think there is a culture of discrimination within the football program at Utah State, their argument doesn't hold water outside of whether or not Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things.

I'll add (again), if Noelle Cockett said racially and religiously bigoted things, I look forward to her resignation. If she didn't, then I hope she continues to apologize for saying something the players THOUGHT was racially or religiously bigoted, but we shouldn't fire people (or pay out civil rights settlements) because someone got their feelings hurt due to an out-of-context statement or misunderstanding.

Upcoming Events

Event Results