It infuriates me that these people are part of the B1G. BUT GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT, AM I RIGHT?
OT: Rutgers Commits Yet Another PR Error
It infuriates me that these people are part of the B1G. BUT GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT, AM I RIGHT?
For those of you who don't care to click on the link, an explanation from the first paragraph:
A Rutgers official asked Eric LeGrand on Saturday night to deliver the keynote speech at the university's May 18 commencement. Less than 48 hours later, another university official called LeGrand to inform him that the school had "decided to go in another direction for political reasons."
Can we just take Rutgers out back and put them out of their misery?
"A Rutgers official asked Eric LeGrand on Saturday night to deliver the keynote speech at the university's May 18 commencement. Less than 48 hours later, another university official called LeGrand to inform him that the school had "decided to go in another direction for political reasons."
Huh? Political reasons? Here's a Rutgers student with an incredible and inspirational story to tell and this is how he gets treated? If someone would care, please tell me why we chose Rutgers over other schools when expanding the conference. I find it fitting somehow that the next recommended story is about a tight end transferring away from Rutgers hoping to reach his potential elsewhere.
It's "political reasons" because they seriously screwed up in allowing Condi Rice to be shouted down because some people didn't like her politics, so they needed to get someone who seemed to make up for it.
Further discussion of details of this would violate the board's no-politics policy.
Who died and made you a mod?
Wait, you mean people don't want someone who condones torture giving out Commencement Speeches?
Huh, imagine that
I'll believe this is an intellectually honest opinion if you can either document your protest of President Obama's speech at U of M in 2010 due to his excessive use of drone strikes, or coherently argue that it is better to kill suspected terrorists and their families than to waterboard them.
I have mixed thoughts about these issues and differ in places with Rice's politics, but this is not the place to get into them. The fact is, politicians on both sides of the aisle have their hands dirty in these areas; Rice did not get shouted down because of any one issue. It was garden-variety partisan politics. I think commencements should be above that (and had no problem with President Obama speaking at either UM or any other place). However, many don't.
But the point of my post was not to give you a chance to throw out your views, but to illuminate the larger situation that Rutgers has allowed itself to become entangled in. And to state why the "Politics" explanation was an accurate comment from Legrand.
You're right, it's not just a Bush administration thing; Obama is definitely toeing/crossing the same lines.
That being said, I disagree that anybody here is being shouted down. But going further than that is more political than we should get on MGoBlog, which is also taking away from the key point of:
"LOL MORE LIKE BUTTGERS AMIRITE?!??!?!?"
Whoops, doubling down on folly.
Don't forget that a degree comes with the speech payload.
that they "seriously screwed up" not in "allowing Condi Rice to be shouted down because some people didn't like her politics", but in naming someone to be their commencement speaker who would so obviously be a lightning-rod for student anger and criticism? They brought this on themselves.
As usual, pretty much all of Rutgers wounds are self-inflicted.
so how did the media find out about this? why is it that some people just can't deal with others decisions so they have to go and make them look bad? legrand should have been like "this sucks, what a bunch of assholes, but they can do what they want" instead of "this sucks, what a bunch of assholes, I'm going to contact the media and make them look bad because I don't have the ability to deal with this like an adult". it's pathetic
So it's LeGrand's fault?
there is no fault here, they changed their mind, why can't he just deal with that?
Still sounds like you're saying it's his fault...
he can't deal with it. It's his fault he took it public.
I couldn't think of a better person to give the speech but apparently Rutgers' officials could. Legrand needs to deal with it. He - as much or more than most - should know that life is rarely fair.
I don't understand the sentiment. Life's not fair, so shut up and take it? I don't really think this is that big of a deal one way or the other, but I certainly have no problem with LeGrand making it public.
But Rutgers didn't really do anything wrong other than change their mind, and it's not like they told him at the last minute. In my opinion, and I know this differs from a lot of other people, is that it makes LeGrand look bitter. Like a child tattle-telling.
Why make it public? Just so LeGrand can say that they wanted him then spurned him? I don't see what Rutgers did as that big of a deal, but I don't see why LeGrand needed to go to the media with it, other than it keeps him in the spotlight.
dolts. The least they could do is give LeGrand the $35k they would have given him.
This is meant to be satire right? Tell me you didn't sit down behind a keyboard, nod to yourself, and decide that this was a well-reasoned thought.
Where in the article does it say that LeGrand contacted the media? It's likely that he mentioned it to friends and family. It's entirely possible that one of them contacted the media and the media then contacted LeGrand.
another university official called LeGrand to inform him that the school had "decided to go in another direction for political reasons.
Can't Delany use the same excuse for backing off on admitting these assholes to the B1G? Look, we just have to change a few words in the above quote and we're done....it's not so hard.
I keep thinking back to a time when we probably could've wooed Syracuse into the conference, which would've moved our footprint pretty firmly into New York. Shit.
Syracuse > Rutgers in all ways except one . . . Syracuse is in the Syracuse area, Rutgers is in the New York City area. Hence, we get Rutgers.
If Rutgers were 200 miles west, the B1G schools would never even lower themselves to schedule them, much less invite them into the conference.
but if they were 200 miles further EAST, then not only would they be admitted to the conference but each B10 team would be required to play rutgers twice in all sports (3 times if possible), NJ'd be hosting all B10 tourney events AND prior to all B10 competitions, they'd play the Rutgers fight song after the national anthem.
Really, they are coming to the Big Ten? What a cluster of an administration.
Way to go Jim Delany. I hope that East Coast "presence" is worth it.
That the "spineless" ones in this story are members of the Rutgers administration. The whole commencement saga at Rutgers this spring has been one shit show after another.
The 'political reasons' is not anything from Rutgers (at least that I've been able to tell; there's no quotes from Rutgers on this subject yet). LeGrand went public that he was rejected after being told they chose someone else, but did not give reasons. The 'political reasons' was an editorial comment by LeGrand apparently. Another reporter tweeted out that LeGrand went public because Rutgers hadn't returned communication for further clarification on why they choose someone else after giving the job to him first.
So terrible PR on Rutgers part? Yes. Terrible communication on Rutgers part? Yes. Malicious act to replace an inspirational alum with a politician for some unknown political gains? Maybe, maybe not? I'll reserve full judgement until more facts come out. For all we know, they promised the job to that other guy and it didn't get communicated to the President who then went and choose LeGrand afterward.
But still, how does Rutgers not have their shit in order to coordinate this stuff effectively?
He was quoting Julie Hermann, who told him they did it for "political reasons." Now, maybe he lied, or maybe SHE editorialized. But the quote has a source.
Was it? I see a tweet from LeGrand, the source of the 'political reasons', which says:
"Rutgers offered me the commencement speech this weekend and I was going to accept but they decided to go other ways for political reasons."
I also see reports from various news agencies along the lines of:
LeGrand said he was starting to plan his speech on Monday when he received a call from new athletic director Julie Hermann, who told him the school was having someone else give the commencement speech.
And I also read a quote from LeGrand saying:
"I just want an explanation," LeGrand told NJ.com Monday night. "I wish somebody would have given me a call tonight and explained to me why. Then I can understand, but don't just leave me hanging."
Nowhere have I found a "Julie Hermann said it was for politcal reasons" for any comment really from any Rutgers official. So implying that LeGrand is quoting Hermann, is exactly what it sounds like: an implication that involves a made logical jump on the reader's part. I mean, yeah, it's perfectly possible that LeGrand quoted Hermann, but he didn't attribute that to Hermann in any of his statements I've found at least. But it's also possible that the 'political reasons' is an editorial on LeGrand's part. Maybe it's just me, but in this current age of INTSTANT OUTRAGE brought on by news being broken in 140 charachters, I'll wait for holes to be filled in so my outrage can be measured and appropriate.
Upon arriving home, LeGrand received a phone call from Hermann. He says she told him Barchi had "decided to go in another direction for political reasons," whatever that means.
I've seen a longer quote on it, but I don't recall where.
Well there we go. More information aquired. Outrage can now more appropriately be gauged and signed.
As the borderline-illicit conversation earlier in the thread demonstrates, whether he editorialized or not he was completely accurate. Rutgers is responding to political pressure here and they are not doing it well.
LeGrand posted it on twitter and facebook when he probably should have kept it in house. I'm no fan of RU's President Barchi and AD Hermann. That said Eric comes off a a little ungrateful here. RU has done a lot for him. They retired his number because he was paralyzed. It certainly wasn't because of his play. He was the 3rd DT in the rotation as a junior. Then he gets a job as the analyst for Rutgers games which he's not very good at. He doesn't have a voice for broadcasting. He probably should have thought "Rutgers is going to trot me out and pay me for things for the rest of my life. Better to just swallow this and keep moving." Dealing with President/AD incompetence is something he'll have to get used to there.
But he's given a HELL of a lot to Rutgers as well.
Agreed. LeGrand has provided one of the only uplifting stories to come out of the PR hellscape that is Rutgers in the last several years. Despite every indication that the place is, in an administrative sense, rotten to the core, he's served as a great ambassador.
I agree with that. It has been mutually beneficial. So why trash them after this? Sure, Rutgers handled this poorly. It turned out he was their second choice for commencement speaker (which shows how highly they think of him) and shouldn't have asked him at all. Now, he has gone and blown that entire relationship up, which in the long-run will probably hurt him more than Rutgers (though for the short term makes both look bad).
If you had a co-worker who you got along with really well, he helped you and you helped him and you both made each other's lives easier at work, and then that person did one thing that wasn't terrible but made you feel bad, do you throw him under the bus in front of the entire office? Sure, he might not be as good of a buddy going forward, but to throw it all out the window is just dumb.
Yeah, he's so set up with that broadcasting job. I wanna get paralyzed too, the benefits are amazing.
I get what you're saying, but come on, the guy literally broke his neck working for them. I think whether he should have dealt with it in private or not, it's a little ridiculous to call him ungrateful. Also, I'll take your word for it that he's the one who got the info out, but don't you think he also mentioned to at least some people before that he'd be doing the speech once they gave it to him? And if so, do you think he should have lied about why he wouldn't be giving the speech anymore?
"Yeah, he's so set up with that broadcasting job. I wanna get paralyzed too, the benefits are amazing."
That is the most idiotic post I have ever read on this site. Congratulations.
One might almost be tempted to think it was hyperbole or sarcasm.
I think we have a winner in the "most flagrant example of someone who responds to a comment without reading the whole post" daily sweepstakes.
But it's not Rutgers's fault that he's paralyzed. That could have happened at any school. But Rutgers has helped him out and honored him quite a bit since the accident. I think the point the above poster made was that Rutgers has done a lot for LeGrand, and I agree with that. And I agree Rutgers handled this poorly, but to drag their name through the mud over it seems bitter on LeGrand's part and probably isn't smart for him going forward.
Thank God it was not the "U" that was next door to New York City when Jim Delany went a Footprintin'.
I think we asked Rutgers to join the B1G to make Penn State feel better about themselves.
Just as the over commercialization of the pro leagues made me stop watching them, the over expanstion and commercialization of the NCAA will eventually lead me to stop watching and supporting them as well.
It's sad, but the reality of it all. Human beings turn into raging douchemonsters when money and politics get involved.
Human beings are always raging douchemonsters then. Sounds about right.
Well at least we didn't do something stupid like invite this school into our conference...amirite guys?
Is it too late to drop Rutgers? We could drop Maryland and Penn State too so Rutgers doesn't feel singled out.
If we're going to take the initiative back to 10, I would like to remove MSU on FOOTPRINT principles as well then.
Once again, Rutgers walking around with their clown shoes on in the media.
I still can't beleive this turd of an institution is in our conference.
i, before e, except after c...and all that jazz
While I understand that it was rude to offer this young man an opportunity to give the commencement speech w/o being 100% certain they wanted him, I don't see the big deal in finding a more qualified speaker. The pres of the university decided to go in a different direction (for political reasons). So why is this thread worthy? All this blog wants to do is criticize, and spew negativity. It's time for some of us to look in the mirror, take a breath and chill the [email protected] out.
I think a big part of it is that many people are pissed that Rutgers is in the Big Ten, so anything they do is under a microscope and gets blown up. If most others schools would have done this, I bet there wouldn't be a thread, or at least the discussion would be less one-sided. When people already have an opinion on something, everything that something does is viewed in accordance with that opinion.
Ex: Tom Brady is awesome, so when he dresses weird it's awesome (because he's fucking Tom Brady, right?). Rutgers sucks and I hate that they are in our league, so every borderline thing they do is fucking awful and Delaney is an asshole. These are not necessarily my opinions but the general view around here.
People will continue to make mountains out of mole hills.
It is thread worthy because it is yet another snafu by a team entering the B1G, and from a general college perspective just looks crappy given how much bad PR that school has had. Yeah, maybe people are overreacting a bit, but I'd like to think so a prominent cock-up would be thread-worthy during the down period even if it wasn't Rutgers.
Jesus. They could have surfed the Eric LeGrand story for another decade or so and accrued tons of goodwill. But no.
First, call in the college football hero for a great honor, only to whisper to him softly after the invite to kindly leave.
Nice one Rutgahs.
Unfortunately this thread is not OT anymore. The whole speaker process has been a debacle with protests and such. Not to get political but Kean was governor of NJ before any of these graduates were even born. They would much rather hear a fellow student speak.
Seems like Rutgers didn't forsee all the bad PR, and trying to backpedal out of this by again allowing LeGrand to speak.
Has gotten out of hand at pretty much every university. I think it's best to have a non-political speaker or better yet, only a fellow student speaker. The spotlight should be on the students not the fame or infamy of the speaker. Besides, politicians typically aren't the best role models anyway. They haven't really achieved anything substantial except win a popularity contest.
And political speakers tend to tarnish what should be a joyous moment by making controversial and/or offensive statements. At one commencement I attended, the speaker actually accused Bush of being a war criminal and implied that anybody who wasn't pro big government was a racist pig. Whether that's true or not, it's not the time or place.
It is too political, but if we didn't allow political leaders to speak, some of history's greatest moments would have been delivered in other venues. Among them:
- Secretary of State George Marshall used Harvard's commencement in 1948 to outline his vision for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and hold off the advance of Communism.
- In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson used Ohio University and the University of Michigan commencements to outline his vision for the Great Society.
I think student activism is a great thing (it flows from their idealism) but by chasing off a commencement speaker because they disagree with the views of the speaker, they may rob themselves of a history making opportunity. It's also rude.
Facebook post by Eric LeGrand:
After speaking with President Barchi, I will be joining Governor Kean at the Rutgers' Commencement ceremony on May 18th . There was miscommunication and an honest mistake on their end. I have only love and respect for Rutgers University. They supported me from day 1. It is because of their support that I am able to graduate, as they made sure I had all the resources necessary to continue with school and work towards my degree. Let's keep the conversation focused on the graduates---the future leaders of tomorrow--on their accomplishments and hard work. I look forward to celebrating this occasion with my peers and let's hear it for the Class of 2014!
Loiusville would have been such a better pick than Rutgers. Great bball and football teams. No professional teams to crowd the media time...oh, and their administration isn't in shambles.