• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544
    *For quicker support use email when possible.

You are viewing page of 29.

Discussion Forum >>

2020 U Sports Champs
Reply to topic Go to last post
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 9
    Report    REPLY #701 

    Anonymous said 4 days ago

    this is getting old.

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 1048
    thumbs_up 26
    Report    REPLY #702 

    Meizner said 4 days ago

    Queen's U faculty Association weighs in:
    https://www.qufa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Letter-to-Principal-and-Provost-re-Steve-Boyd.pdf

    My favorite part: "The arguments may have been unwelcome to some of Boyd’s interlocutors because they implicate student athletes and their achievements in the offenses perpetrated and ignored at Guelph, but to style the posts, which are devoid of insult, invective, ad hominem accusation, or belittling, as “bullying,” as representatives of Queen’s have done, is an abuse of language. "

    and the closing line carefully slips in some interesting innuendo re: donors. Rumors are flying in the Queen's community re: the role of a large donor in all of this.

    "Such characterization serves to haul arguments that are unwelcome—to students, to other institutions, possibly to donors—that is, arguments of a kind faculty make all the time in the fulfillment of academic responsibilities, toward the prohibited zone of harassment. "

    This post was edited by Meizner 3 days ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #703 

    Anonymous said 4 days ago



    This is the first level of support I've seen that could actually lead to him being rehired. Student Athletes will come and go, but the athletic department will need the faculty on their side for much bigger issues then this

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #704 

    Andrew Jones said 4 days ago



    Thanks for this Matt.

    The contained section below is absolutely seminal to the idea and implementation of a university. These days, unfortunately, this essence seems to be under regular attack:

    "Open inquiry and the freedom to speak, write, listen, and learn are foundational principles on which Queen’s University is built. As such, the University is committed to providing an environment conducive to open dialogue and debate. The University is also committed to the principle that it should not restrict the expression of ideas or opinions that may be disturbing, offensive, or unpopular."

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #705 

    Anonymous said 4 days ago




    Now, that's a a well thought out and presented letter.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #706 

    LETSNOTRUN said 4 days ago

    Everytime one the Guelph Aplogists post "this is getting old", they bump the thread and I read more.

    The Faculty Association letter linked above is very interesting. Heads need to roll, and Boyd needs to be reinstated. Period.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #707 

    Enough already said 4 days ago


    He is all you need to know from this opinion piece:

    “Let me begin with some caveats to assure you of our appreciation of the complex nature of situations where free expression and employment obligations collide. First, our comments are necessarily based on publicly available material. Based on our own involvement in dismissal cases, we are acutely aware that in such cases the confidential facts and the word on the street often do not align. Second, we surmise that the basis for Mr. Boyd’s dismissal may not have been his utterances per se, but insubordination when he continued to post about the dismissal of disgraced Guelph coach Dave Scott- Thomas after he was told to desist. We recognize that the University has a right to dismiss employees for insubordination. Third, we appreciate that academic freedom protection arises only from our Collective Agreement, which did not cover Steve Boyd, while the civil right of freedom of expression which all Canadians enjoy as a condition of citizenship, is not a condition of employment. Fourth and finally, we also recognize that even had Steven Boyd been our Member, the academic provisions of the Collective Agreement do not license harassing or bullying speech. In other words, even if Steve Boyd had been a QUFA Member, had his speech been harassing or bullying in character, he could have been dismissed on the basis of the character of his speech.”

    Elizabeth Hanson
    President
    Queen’s University Faculty Association

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 1048
    thumbs_up 21
    Report    REPLY #708 

    Meizner said 4 days ago

    Quoting: Enough already
    "He is all you need to know from this opinion piece:

    “Let me begin with some caveats to assure you of our appreciation of the complex nature of situations where free expression and employment obligations collide. First, our comments are necessarily based on publicly available material. Based on our own involvement in dismissal cases, we are acutely aware that in such cases the confidential facts and the word on the street often do not align. Second, we surmise that the basis for Mr. Boyd’s dismissal may not have been his utterances per se, but insubordination when he continued to post about the dismissal of disgraced Guelph coach Dave Scott- Thomas after he was told to desist. We recognize that the University has a right to dismiss employees for insubordination. Third, we appreciate that academic freedom protection arises only from our Collective Agreement, which did not cover Steve Boyd, while the civil right of freedom of expression which all Canadians enjoy as a condition of citizenship, is not a condition of employment. Fourth and finally, we also recognize that even had Steven Boyd been our Member, the academic provisions of the Collective Agreement do not license harassing or bullying speech. In other words, even if Steve Boyd had been a QUFA Member, had his speech been harassing or bullying in character, he could have been dismissed on the basis of the character of his speech.”

    Elizabeth Hanson
    President
    Queen’s University Faculty Association"



    This is quite a selective quotation in isolation, and ignores or misses the fact that this paragraph is the prelude to the subsequent evisceration that ensues in the following paragraphs. Go back and read it again, but this time pay attention to all of it, not just what fits your narrative.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #709 

    Anonymous said 3 days ago

    Quoting: Meizner
    "This is quite a selective quotation in isolation, and ignores or misses the fact that this paragraph is the prelude to the subsequent evisceration that ensues in the following paragraphs. Go back and read it again, but this time pay attention to all of it, not just what fits your narrative."


    It’s actually very relevant and stands on its own. They acknowledge that they don’t know all the details and there could be a very legitimate reason for the universities actions.

    Also, how much of this was written/influenced by Prof MacDougall? He obviously has a massively biased opinion, as already stated in his own narrative.

    Finally, bullying is a behaviour not the use of a specific word. Speaking in a calm voice doesn’t mean you aren’t bullying someone. Avoiding ad hominem attacks doesn’t mean what oldster did was on the up and up.

    Also, why haven’t you donated to Steve’s defense fund? Seems to be very very little support when people need to do more than sign a petition.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #710 

    Anonymous said 3 days ago

    2 things
    1. He's not getting rehired
    2. Would he even want o go back?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 13
    Report    REPLY #711 

    🤦 said 3 days ago

    Does it really stand on it's own? Because the next two sentences are:

    "We understand all these facts, distinctions and qualifications that might attend the decision to dismiss Steven Boyd. Nevertheless, we remain deeply concerned about the University’s action and regard it as a violation of the values the University purports to stand for."

    As Meizer said, you're choosing information in isolation to fit your narrative.



    Quoting: Anonymous
    "It’s actually very relevant and stands on its own. They acknowledge that they don’t know all the details and there could be a very legitimate reason for the universities actions.

    Also, how much of this was written/influenced by Prof MacDougall? He obviously has a massively biased opinion, as already stated in his own narrative.

    Finally, bullying is a behaviour not the use of a specific word. Speaking in a calm voice doesn’t mean you aren’t bullying someone. Avoiding ad hominem attacks doesn’t mean what oldster did was on the up and up.

    Also, why haven’t you donated to Steve’s defense fund? Seems to be very very little support when people need to do more than sign a petition."

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #712 

    Anonymous said 3 days ago

    Quoting: Andrew Jones
    "Thanks for this Matt.

    The contained section below is absolutely seminal to the idea and implementation of a university. These days, unfortunately, this essence seems to be under regular attack:

    "Open inquiry and the freedom to speak, write, listen, and learn are foundational principles on which Queen’s University is built. As such, the University is committed to providing an environment conducive to open dialogue and debate. The University is also committed to the principle that it should not restrict the expression of ideas or opinions that may be disturbing, offensive, or unpopular.""


    And this is, unfortunately, connected to the fact that universities and other institutions use the word "donors" for what, in actuality, end up being "buyers" and, in the end, "owners".

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #713 

    Enough already said 3 days ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "It’s actually very relevant and stands on its own. They acknowledge that they don’t know all the details and there could be a very legitimate reason for the universities actions.

    Also, how much of this was written/influenced by Prof MacDougall? He obviously has a massively biased opinion, as already stated in his own narrative.

    Finally, bullying is a behaviour not the use of a specific word. Speaking in a calm voice doesn’t mean you aren’t bullying someone. Avoiding ad hominem attacks doesn’t mean what oldster did was on the up and up.

    Also, why haven’t you donated to Steve’s defense fund? Seems to be very very little support when people need to do more than sign a petition."


    Thanks for pointing out what I had thought was obvious. My post was neither in support of or again Boyd’s dismissal. My post was meant to point out that the letter held no weight for me given all the caveats they admit to.
    What I read was an opinion letter written by a group of academics (employee) that was using the situation to throw a little shade on the Administration (employer).
    And yes I did read the entire letter, a couple of times.

    Clearly, Meizner, you missed the part where the FA even admitted that Boyd’s dismissal had more to do with INSUBORDINATION rather than anything he actually said.

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2647
    thumbs_up 31
    Report    REPLY #714 

    Oldster said 3 days ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "It’s actually very relevant and stands on its own. They acknowledge that they don’t know all the details and there could be a very legitimate reason for the universities actions.

    Also, how much of this was written/influenced by Prof MacDougall? He obviously has a massively biased opinion, as already stated in his own narrative.

    Finally, bullying is a behaviour not the use of a specific word. Speaking in a calm voice doesn’t mean you aren’t bullying someone. Avoiding ad hominem attacks doesn’t mean what oldster did was on the up and up.

    Also, why haven’t you donated to Steve’s defense fund? Seems to be very very little support when people need to do more than sign a petition."


    Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't respond to anonymous post on this, but this is ignorant and scurrilous even by anon trackie standards.

    The opening paragraph of the QUFA letter is powerful for reasons that you have clearly missed. In outlining the reasons and powers Queen's theoretically could use to make and support its decision, it challenges admin to actually produce some real support for said decision. If it doesn't have this support (and I can 100% assure you that it does not-- even the part about insubordination is very easily refuted using concrete evidence) then the full force of paragraph two comes to bear on it. In other words, lacking support for termination on these other grounds, it can ONLY be concluded that I was fired for speaking freely, as per Queen's own statement of principles in this regard, in an "area of my expertise". Finally, if Queen's can be shown to have violated its own public statement of principles, this would affect its reputation and "brand", which would make the decision to fire me for exercising my rights as a Queen's employee a matter for Senate consideration and not just a standard "HR issue". And. remember, it was on this basis that the Senate was able to deny any obligation to take this issue up at its annual meeting (see the response that people who sent the Senate letters of support for me recently received).

    As for your interpretation for what constitutes "bullying" and "attacking", nowhere does Prof Hansen refer to tone alone. She says that the arguments I made were "civilly and patiently if persistently urged"-- a very precise description of how I conduct myself when speaking with people who have the courage to identify themselves (phantoms like you are not entitled to such respect). And she compares what I said to arguments that professional academics make as a matter of course every day. It would seem that it's only in the infantlized world of sports that these finer points are not registered.

    As for suggestion that this letter is an "opinion piece", or somehow orchestrated by one person-- Colin MacDougall-- is outrageously disrespectful towards a professional body like QUFA. In fact, it's completely unhinged. Personally attacking Matt for somehow not supporting me or the program of which is a proud alum is likewise completely discrediting (as if you and others like you had any credibility in the first place).

    This post was edited by Oldster 3 days ago . 
    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 1048
    thumbs_up 26
    Report    REPLY #715 

    Meizner said 3 days ago

    Quoting: Enough already
    "Thanks for pointing out what I had thought was obvious. My post was neither in support of or again Boyd’s dismissal. My post was meant to point out that the letter held no weight for me given all the caveats they admit to.
    What I read was an opinion letter written by a group of academics (employee) that was using the situation to throw a little shade on the Administration (employer).
    And yes I did read the entire letter, a couple of times.

    Clearly, Meizner, you missed the part where the FA even admitted that Boyd’s dismissal had more to do with INSUBORDINATION rather than anything he actually said."


    Clearly our reading comprehension skills are not aligned. I'll leave it at that.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #716 

    Anonymous said 2 days ago

    Quoting: Oldster
    " only in the infantlized world of sports that these finer points are not registered."


    I just wanted to make sure this wasn't lost in the usual torrent of steve's verbosity. To be clear: I agree with it 100%. No one can dare to say anything remotely critical in our tiny little world, lest they be branded a bully, like Steve has wrongly been.

    Ironically, Steve, this is why people post anonymously. No excuse for being both stupid and anonymous, but it's not true that every anonymous poster is a coward.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 56850
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #717 

    LETSNOTRUN said 2 days ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "I just wanted to make sure this wasn't lost in the usual torrent of steve's verbosity. To be clear: I agree with it 100%. No one can dare to say anything remotely critical in our tiny little world, lest they be branded a bully, like Steve has wrongly been.

    Ironically, Steve, this is why people post anonymously. No excuse for being both stupid and anonymous, but it's not true that every anonymous poster is a coward."


    Ironically, this post is very ironic.

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitoldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2647
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #718 

    Oldster said 1 day ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "I just wanted to make sure this wasn't lost in the usual torrent of steve's verbosity. To be clear: I agree with it 100%. No one can dare to say anything remotely critical in our tiny little world, lest they be branded a bully, like Steve has wrongly been.

    Ironically, Steve, this is why people post anonymously. No excuse for being both stupid and anonymous, but it's not true that every anonymous poster is a coward."


    Hey, if you can explain all this in fewer words than I have used, please do.

    And I welcome your further insights into the motivations of anonymous contributors.

    Quote comment
Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account

 

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1