Did I Miss Something?
It recently came to light that there has been hazing in the Northwestern University football program; as a result of that their coach (Pat Fitzgerald) was suspended for two weeks without pay. But when it was revealed that the hazing was sexual in nature, the suspension was revoked (sort of) and Fitzgerald was fired.
Now, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that if he was suspended for the hazing incidents, the suspension should be left intact when the nature of the hazing came to light.
Why was the penalty more severe for sexually-themed hazing than just for hazing? Is dry humping a guy really more insulting that pouring beer over his head, or making him put itching powder in his jock, or making him gather up all the sweaty uniforms after practice and taking them to the laundry facility?
This is only my opinion, but hazing is hazing, regardless of the nature of the act. It shouldn’t matter if you steal a Kia Rio or Cadillac Escalade or a Bentley: you stole a car and that’s the only thing that should matter.
There was a female teacher in a Catholic school who got fired when the administration found out that she lied on parts of her job application and on some other papers she had to sign as conditions to her continued employment.
The media here in town screamed bloody murder, stating as fact that she was fired because she was a lesbian. But that is absolutely and unequivocally not true; she was fired because she lied on her application, and she lied on the forms she signed.
The administration discovered that she hid the fact she’s a lesbian, and she hid the fact that she married another woman. They fired her because she lied on multiple forms she signed; they did NOT fire her because of what she lied about.
She could have lied about not having a criminal record. She could have lied about various charities she was actively supporting. She could have lied and said she was a Catholic when she wasn’t. WHAT she lied about is completely beside the point; it was the fact that she lied that got her fired.
And very few people understand that.
So back to my original question: Why was the nature of the hazing even considered when Northwestern doled out its punishment? Why wasn’t Fitzgerald fired for the hazing itself, not because of the sexual nature of some of the hazing?
Why isn’t the act itself what people see as wrong, rather than the details of the act?
Or am I just being naïve?
Now, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that if he was suspended for the hazing incidents, the suspension should be left intact when the nature of the hazing came to light.
Why was the penalty more severe for sexually-themed hazing than just for hazing? Is dry humping a guy really more insulting that pouring beer over his head, or making him put itching powder in his jock, or making him gather up all the sweaty uniforms after practice and taking them to the laundry facility?
This is only my opinion, but hazing is hazing, regardless of the nature of the act. It shouldn’t matter if you steal a Kia Rio or Cadillac Escalade or a Bentley: you stole a car and that’s the only thing that should matter.
There was a female teacher in a Catholic school who got fired when the administration found out that she lied on parts of her job application and on some other papers she had to sign as conditions to her continued employment.
The media here in town screamed bloody murder, stating as fact that she was fired because she was a lesbian. But that is absolutely and unequivocally not true; she was fired because she lied on her application, and she lied on the forms she signed.
The administration discovered that she hid the fact she’s a lesbian, and she hid the fact that she married another woman. They fired her because she lied on multiple forms she signed; they did NOT fire her because of what she lied about.
She could have lied about not having a criminal record. She could have lied about various charities she was actively supporting. She could have lied and said she was a Catholic when she wasn’t. WHAT she lied about is completely beside the point; it was the fact that she lied that got her fired.
And very few people understand that.
So back to my original question: Why was the nature of the hazing even considered when Northwestern doled out its punishment? Why wasn’t Fitzgerald fired for the hazing itself, not because of the sexual nature of some of the hazing?
Why isn’t the act itself what people see as wrong, rather than the details of the act?
Or am I just being naïve?
If the coach was responsible for it and if it was against campus rules, penalize the coach for 6 months pay,
paid to the victims, then fire him. Such penalties should be stated in the contract of all university employees.
If it isn't against university rules then the victims should sue the university for damages.
Let a jury find if there are damages and the amount.