Schwartz's Ridiculous Article

[SpecialKHawk]

I wonder what the verdict would have been if Barta documented her insubordination/coaches' complaints in writing and if Gene Taylor was paid the same salary instead of $70k more...

I have never understood this big time assertion that there was unequal pay because Taylor got 70K more. Does anyone live in the real world? Most times when you go outside of your organization to employ a qualified candidate it costs you more than the person being replaced. That's why people leave organizations to change jobs all the time!!!!! Evidence of unequal pay? Really?

 

[SpecialKHawk]

By the way I applaud this site for pulling that Schwartz article. It's worthless drivel from a guy who thinks he's entitled and the self proclaimed savior of the world. Please.

 

[docholihawk]

I remember the days when the media reported facts and truths in order for people to understand. Sadly, today reporters are only interested in getting views to there articles. It used to be people were admonished or fired for incorrect reporting. Today they get patted on the back for people viewing their articles. Today the closest we get in most reporters articles is when they talk about Gloria's flower show in central park.

 

[Thawki]

I, too, like many of Schwartz's articles, but on this one he obviously left his testicles at home. Schwartz ignores the many examples of Meyer's incompetence and mismanagement. I would argue that she kept her job as long as she did simply because she is a woman.

If she was so bad at her job then why was it documented in court that all of her reviews were great...until after the coach in question was fired?

 

[Hawk90]

If she was so bad at her job then why was it documented in court that all of her reviews were great...until after the coach in question was fired?

Every job review that I have ever seen, given or received vary little from bad to good. You damn with faint praise, I am sure that her's sounded stellar in a court of law. In the politically correct environment of the university, corporate world, or even the army the last thing an employer, or supervisor will do is blast an employee in a job review. Especially, if it is a male reviewing a female. Wake up!

 

[homes]

Every job review that I have ever seen, given or received vary little from bad to good. You damn with faint praise, I am sure that her's sounded stellar in a court of law. In the politically correct environment of the university, corporate world, or even the army the last thing an employer, or supervisor will do is blast an employee in a job review. Especially, if it is a male reviewing a female. Wake up!

HR stuff is hard these days, but it doesn't mean you don't do it. Otherwise, the inmates will run the asylum. There are ways to write tough, but factual, reviews. Everything should be written with the idea that it will end up being read to a jury. That's the screwed up world we live in.

 

[Thawki]

Every job review that I have ever seen, given or received vary little from bad to good. You damn with faint praise, I am sure that her's sounded stellar in a court of law. In the politically correct environment of the university, corporate world, or even the army the last thing an employer, or supervisor will do is blast an employee in a job review. Especially, if it is a male reviewing a female. Wake up!

Maybe you should wake up. It doesn't appear the Iowa Athletic Department has been operating in a world of political correctness. If it had, then they wouldn't have just lost the first of two court cases, to say the least. People who are underperforming enough to get let go typically have a paper trail showing that. There was none here.

What it sounds like to me is that you are in denial. I quoted a fact and you made something up to fit your narrative. Facts hold weight in a court of law. That is why Iowa lost that case. It wasn't that some ISU fan wanted to stick it to Iowa, either, as it was a unanimous decision. You can say what you want here and sound like you know what you are talking about. In court, you cannot just make things up and make them stick like some people prefer to do now in the world of social media.

That, my friend, is indeed, a fact. End of story.

 

[David79]

It was a pretty poor article.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

To be honest I rarely read any of his articles. Nothing against the guy, don't know him, but I just don't seem to jive with the stuff he writes or the way he thinks I guess.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Ok, read it out of curiosity.

"The University of Iowa was one of the last universities in the United States to have separate women’s and men’s athletic departments. From 1973-2000, Grant served as the UI Director of Women’s Athletics. She remains one of the most influential figures in the history of U.S. women’s athletics, especially at the collegiate level."

I don't get this so much. So Iowa's one of the last U's to have separate ath depts., so that makes Grant one of the most influential figures in the history of U.S. women's athletics!!??? Why? Doesn't make sense. What else has she done to make her one of the most influential? Anyway, I think he gets over the top on occasion in his articles.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole situation. She was probably hard to work with, especially if she was battling for women's sports and wanting certain things while KF & Barta wanted a different path for football, wrestling and basketball, which are the $$ grabbers at the U and supports women's sports. So, I could see tension arising. Pay the woman the 1.5 mil and get her out of your hair, IMO. Small change in the realm of it all actually.

 

[RobHowe]

Ok, read it out of curiosity.

"The University of Iowa was one of the last universities in the United States to have separate women’s and men’s athletic departments. From 1973-2000, Grant served as the UI Director of Women’s Athletics. She remains one of the most influential figures in the history of U.S. women’s athletics, especially at the collegiate level."

I don't get this so much. So Iowa's one of the last U's to have separate ath depts., so that makes Grant one of the most influential figures in the history of U.S. women's athletics!!??? Why? Doesn't make sense. What else has she done to make her one of the most influential? Anyway, I think he gets over the top on occasion in his articles.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole situation. She was probably hard to work with, especially if she was battling for women's sports and wanting certain things while KF & Barta wanted a different path for football, wrestling and basketball, which are the $$ grabbers at the U and supports women's sports. So, I could see tension arising. Pay the woman the 1.5 mil and get her out of your hair, IMO. Small change in the realm of it all actually.

I would encourage you to research Christine Grant. She's a pretty important figure in Iowa athletics and well-known for what she's done world-wide for women's athletics.

 

[STLhawkeye20]

Our management decided not to run the column but it has been posted HERE if you guys would like to discuss.

Just read the entire article. It's garbage. Schwartz is clearly a social justice warrior driven by agenda instead of critical thought.

First, "unpleasantness" should be a fireable offense. Ever heard of the word "teamwork" or "communication?" Pleasantness is arguably essential to business, government, whatever. Male or female. Being cordial, well-liked, and easy to work with is important.

To make it worse Schwartz cites some random psychotherapist who was quoted in Business Insider to support an argument. Please. Give me an hour and I can come up with a dozen "psychotherapists" who support the exact opposite conclusion.

Then Shwartz sets up an absurd straw man, saying that if she baked more cookies then maybe she wouldn't have been fired. This completely misses the point and wrongly and offensively suggests that she was fired for not filling the role of a "traditional" woman (housewife, cook, clean, etc.) Schwartz clearly hasn't spent one day in the real world and instead lives in a journalistic utopia where there are no problems in business or the real world other than perceived discrimination.

Then Schwartz makes the sweeping claim that the behavior of women is more heavily scrutinized in today's workplace. Maybe that has merit. I wouldn't know because Schwartz simply accepted it as Biblical truth and expects the reader to do the same instead of supporting with actual evidence like a real journalist.

Finally, Schwartz hysterically over dramatizes the impact of this like a baby, saying that the University of Iowa has been "forever tainted" by "breaking the law." This is another laughable claim grounded in nothing but liberal brainwash and social justice warrior agenda. Yeah, Schwartz, I'm sure that Iowa, a school with an enrollment of 35,000 students and 270,000 alumni around the world, will be "forever tainted" because one man decided to fire a clearly insubordinate employee and a local jury came out one way in what was basically a coin-flip case.

This "article" should be shown in writing classes as an example of the degradation of journalism. And that's not merely because I disagree fundamentally with Schwartz' argument, but because it's written at a 2nd grade level, constructed and written like a rag, and blatantly cherry-picks support while providing none for arguable claims.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I would encourage you to research Christine Grant. She's a pretty important figure in Iowa athletics and well-known for what she's done world-wide for women's athletics.

Yes, I agree. I should probably be a little more objective instead of coming to quick conclusions. I will read up about her.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Just read the entire article. It's garbage. Schwartz is clearly a social justice warrior driven by agenda instead of critical thought.

First, "unpleasantness" should be a fireable offense. Ever heard of the word "teamwork" or "communication?" Pleasantness is arguably essential to business, government, whatever. Male or female. Being cordial, well-liked, and easy to work with is important.

To make it worse Schwartz cites some random psychotherapist who was quoted in Business Insider to support an argument. Please. Give me an hour and I can come up with a dozen "psychotherapists" who support the exact opposite conclusion.

Then Shwartz sets up an absurd straw man, saying that if she baked more cookies then maybe she wouldn't have been fired. This completely misses the point and wrongly and offensively suggests that she was fired for not filling the role of a "traditional" woman (housewife, cook, clean, etc.) Schwartz clearly hasn't spent one day in the real world and instead lives in a journalistic utopia where there are no problems in business or the real world other than perceived discrimination.

Then Schwartz makes the sweeping claim that the behavior of women is more heavily scrutinized in today's workplace. Maybe that has merit. I wouldn't know because Schwartz simply accepted it as Biblical truth and expects the reader to do the same instead of supporting with actual evidence like a real journalist.

Finally, Schwartz hysterically over dramatizes the impact of this like a baby, saying that the University of Iowa has been "forever tainted" by "breaking the law." This is another laughable claim grounded in nothing but liberal brainwash and social justice warrior agenda. Yeah, Schwartz, I'm sure that Iowa, a school with an enrollment of 35,000 students and 270,000 alumni around the world, will be "forever tainted" because one man decided to fire a clearly insubordinate employee and a local jury came out one way in what was basically a coin-flip case.

This "article" should be shown in writing classes as an example of the degradation of journalism. And that's not merely because I disagree fundamentally with Schwartz' argument, but because it's written at a 2nd grade level, constructed and written like a rag, and blatantly cherry-picks support while providing none for arguable claims.

Good read! Agree, if the university survived the Pierre Pierce debacle along with the two CB's rape allegations, I'm pretty sure it will survive this obstacle. Look at the shear number of employees at universities. There will always be instances of these allegations including litigation. Just the numbers and many being of the tree hugging liberal mentality, so there will be these instances in the liberal college/university setting.

 

[Hawknigh]

Good read! Agree, if the university survived the Pierre Pierce debacle along with the two CB's rape allegations, I'm pretty sure it will survive this obstacle. Look at the shear number of employees at universities. There will always be instances of these allegations including litigation. Just the numbers and many being of the tree hugging liberal mentality, so there will be these instances in the liberal college/university setting.

Didn't Sally Mason say something like this a few years ago and get in a lot of trouble for it?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...apologizes-for-sexual-assault-remark/5827897/

 

[Hawk90]

Maybe you should wake up. It doesn't appear the Iowa Athletic Department has been operating in a world of political correctness. If it had, then they wouldn't have just lost the first of two court cases, to say the least. People who are underperforming enough to get let go typically have a paper trail showing that. There was none here.

What it sounds like to me is that you are in denial. I quoted a fact and you made something up to fit your narrative. Facts hold weight in a court of law. That is why Iowa lost that case. It wasn't that some ISU fan wanted to stick it to Iowa, either, as it was a unanimous decision. You can say what you want here and sound like you know what you are talking about. In court, you cannot just make things up and make them stick like some people prefer to do now in the world of social media.

That, my friend, is indeed, a fact. End of story.

Yes, I understand that some people, including yourself and also including juries see every problem through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation and disregard the obvious problem of incompetence. "Oh, you think she is doing a terrible job....you must be sexist." Hopefully the system is in the process of correcting itself in order to curtail this nonsense, but it will take a while.