OT MSU President on hot seat due to Title IX handling

Submitted by poseidon7902 on September 14th, 2022 at 2:38 PM

SIAP:  In a shocking turn of events, MSU is possibly looking to fire it's 3rd President due to the handles of sexual claims in relation to Title IX.  

 

https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-education/third-michigan-state-university-president-now-hotseat

https://www.wxyz.com/news/board-of-trustees-asks-michigan-state-university-president-samuel-stanley-jr-to-retire-early

Side note, a victory for me as this is the first time I've remembered to post a link using the button and not just pasting.  

 

MMBbones

September 14th, 2022 at 2:45 PM ^

I think we all laughed about this yesterday. But thank you for the reminder.

Edit: Yes, "laughed" was a poor word choice based on responses below. Apologies. 

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 9916

Robbie Moore

September 14th, 2022 at 5:10 PM ^

Hey mGrow...

So there is this in one of the linked articles:

But she says the board is not forcing him to leave.

“The board has not taken an action aside from retiring earlier. A suggestion given to him,” Vasser said."

That's just hilarious. We're asking you to retire. But it's just a suggestion, we're not forcing you. You decide not to retire it's all good. Until we fire you to next week.

What a joke.

Joined: 12/01/2008

MGoPoints: 46126

AZBlue

September 14th, 2022 at 2:51 PM ^

From what I have read - the MSU President fired/demoted the dean (? or a top prof) of their B-school due to improper handling of a Title IX issue.

The particular individual is wildly popular and some faculty and B.o.T. members are trying to oust the President for his handling of the improper handling by the individual.  They gave the President until yesterday to step down but he apparently is going to fight the B.o.T. and they will look for any excuse to give him the boot.

TLDR - It is a political S$%^-show that appears to highlight the disfunction of their board as much as anything else.  (Got most of this from the thread over at RCMB fwiw)

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 16850

HAIL 2 VICTORS

September 14th, 2022 at 3:10 PM ^

So the concern in this case is the numerical and proportional in terms of equal numbers of the sexes being represented to reinstate women's swimming.

In preserving Title 9 what is to be made of those that were born male and now identify as female taking a scholarship from a woman.  Competitive advantages aside what happens to women's sports as we proceed down this slippery slope?

it is one thing for a man who now identifies as a woman to swim and dominate.  What happens when we see a man identifying as a woman playing women's basketball or women's ice hockey? 

I can only imagine the frustration of a woman born as a woman being dominated by a person born as a man now identifying as a woman losing a scholarship or a competition that turned out to be of unfair advantage. 

 

 

 

Joined: 12/01/2009

MGoPoints: 21178

AZBlue

September 14th, 2022 at 3:35 PM ^

You do you - but I don't think this has anything to do with that or even Title IX in the larger sense ---

  • President disciplined a well-liked high ranking member of the B-school for non reporting of a Title IX incident (Dirty dancing in public between another prof and student iirc,) -
  • Some people like the B-school person and don't like the President.  They claim he overstepped his authority and the incident wasn't reportable
  • People who don't like the President try to railroad him out but President refuses to go quietly. 

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 16850

HAIL 2 VICTORS

September 14th, 2022 at 4:37 PM ^

ZERO axe to grind.  Title 9 is mentioned I have fair questions regarding Title 9 and no reason to have to start a new thread.  For my own edification.

If Title 9 is meant to protect and preserve women's sports what happens when the participants are no longer female and is that man identifying as a woman now reduce the woman's scholarship from the head count?

It's a fair question that remains unresolved.  As for the female athletes that fought so hard for Title 9 (let alone women's rights activists) I would like to understand their position and no reason this question should not be discussed.

 

Joined: 12/01/2009

MGoPoints: 21178

1989 UM GRAD

September 14th, 2022 at 4:52 PM ^

It is not a fair question.

It's yet another example of the fear-mongering and dog-whistling emanating from the far right and their media outlets.  The only objective is to foment another "culture war" and motivate people to vote on issues that aren't real issues.  

There is no mass influx of trans females in to women's sports.  It's just not happening...and I'll bet you $1 it's not going to happen...ever.  To act like it is some sort of vital issue that needs to be resolved is intellectually dishonest and bigoted.  

Joined: 03/08/2012

MGoPoints: 1530829

HAIL 2 VICTORS

September 14th, 2022 at 5:05 PM ^

If 32 women were denied a scholarship for any other reason would you still claim dishonesty?  

(32) in College in this article - will inspire how many more in the future?

https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/1/7/22850789/trans-athletes-college-ncaa-lia-thomas

Bigoted to ask for a discussion?  

Is it not fair to question that if even a single female athlete loses her opportunity because a person born as a man identifies as a woman and takes her place from her is unjust?

Joined: 12/01/2009

MGoPoints: 21178

oriental andrew

September 14th, 2022 at 5:43 PM ^

Title 9 is mentioned I have fair questions regarding Title 9 and no reason to have to start a new thread. 

This aspect of Title IX has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's a complete non sequitur. 

If Title 9 is meant to protect and preserve women's sports...

This is merely one application of Title IX and not germane to the discussion at hand. Title IX is meant to broadly address issues of gender discrimination in educational settings where federal funding is granted. Sports is the most well-known example but is not, contrary to popular belief, the sole application of Title IX. This particular thread is about sexual harassment/abuse, which is a core part of what Title IX strives to address. 

As for the female athletes that fought so hard for Title 9 (let alone women's rights activists) I would like to understand their position and no reason this question should not be discussed.

If you sincerely want to have that discussion, I'd venture to say that there are many better forums where there is greater female representation who would be happy to engage with you than MGoBlog. 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 56189

AZBlue

September 14th, 2022 at 6:27 PM ^

If you really want to get angry and pick nits about fairness and equal numbers -- there is a whole thread on tRCMB about how M has many (more than 10?) WBB student managers - biological males btw - that count towards the women's numbers within the M athletic department.  This was brought up during the debate re: the MSU W swim team legal victory in regard to title IX.

(FWIW this is apparently somewhat common within the NCAA but they seem to feel the M has a much larger number than normal as part of the vast conspiracy to keep MSU down... ...please remember folks that this conspiracy only keeps working if we all keep our mouths shut!)

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 16850

Littlefurrybuddha

September 14th, 2022 at 11:31 PM ^

Definitely make every issue about the 1 or 2 college athletes per year coming out as transgender during their college careers.  Do not address the tens of thousands who stay with the gender they were born with.  Because a transgender person winning a championship definitely leads to moral decay, the downfall of society, and probably The Rapture.  It's that serious.  Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and all of the other big guys tell us so.  Unless they don't exist.  If they do, they don't address it in their holy books.  At all. But YOU addressing it punches your ticket to heaven.  So congratulations.

 

Joined: 08/25/2015

MGoPoints: 837

kookie

September 14th, 2022 at 3:02 PM ^

This whole situation is weird. From the outside, it looks like a portion (a few, half, most?) of the board wants him out and is using any excuse to get him to resign/fired. It looks like the faction are meddling in day-to-day affairs, which is not their role as an elected governing body. Finally, I've never heard of board members having a debate in a faculty meeting like they did yesterday. Given the recent dysfunction, they will have a heck of a time finding a new president if Stanley leaves. They will probably end up with a yes man like Simon, and we all know how that turned out.

Joined: 12/19/2014

MGoPoints: 2781