There are laws in Employment contracts that are applicable regardless whether an institution is a private institution or it is not
It's obviously clear that many that support getting rid of Golden are uncomfortable discussing that Randy Shannon may have been discriminated against since he was fired with Al Golden having being NOW retained, with an even worse record (brought by losing 4 straight games to both rivals and in the most recent losing streak).
I honestly believe that as much as we don't want to raise a discrimination issue or "race thing", we would all feel better about it if we can see it from a perspective of specificity.
Wouldn't the UM BOT find the money and resolve to fire the current coach if he was a slick talking obvious excuse-machine coach with an overall LOSING record 55-56 and 28-22 UM record that is worse than a previous coach?
As much as many of us -- who want Golden fired rightfully so -- don't really want to talk about discrimination, and that "race thing", there is right now NOT ONE solid reason to fire Golden that the UM BOT can't just ignore. They can ignore all the reasons that Golden should be fired, except employment discrimination, and that they have an elitist racist attitude toward the operation of Football and Football leadership.
The question here is that can someone in the legal field explicate this angle in legal terms or in the proper terms so we don't have to feel bad that we're going after firing Golden because of some cheap "race card thing".
Some of us will feel good in having a high moral ground to not use discrimination as a cause to fire Golden, or to correct any injustice. Some of us who are particularly uncomfortable with that "race thing" and using the race card, will feign that we would use it (falsely) just to get rid of Golden...
But then if discrimination is true and can't be ignored, then why would we use other truths about the baseless retention that UM Admin can just ignore?
Wouldn't this be about not only using the only issue that can work to fire Golden but an issue that is also true?
It's obviously clear that many that support getting rid of Golden are uncomfortable discussing that Randy Shannon may have been discriminated against since he was fired with Al Golden having being NOW retained, with an even worse record (brought by losing 4 straight games to both rivals and in the most recent losing streak).
I honestly believe that as much as we don't want to raise a discrimination issue or "race thing", we would all feel better about it if we can see it from a perspective of specificity.
Wouldn't the UM BOT find the money and resolve to fire the current coach if he was a slick talking obvious excuse-machine coach with an overall LOSING record 55-56 and 28-22 UM record that is worse than a previous coach?
As much as many of us -- who want Golden fired rightfully so -- don't really want to talk about discrimination, and that "race thing", there is right now NOT ONE solid reason to fire Golden that the UM BOT can't just ignore. They can ignore all the reasons that Golden should be fired, except employment discrimination, and that they have an elitist racist attitude toward the operation of Football and Football leadership.
The question here is that can someone in the legal field explicate this angle in legal terms or in the proper terms so we don't have to feel bad that we're going after firing Golden because of some cheap "race card thing".
Some of us will feel good in having a high moral ground to not use discrimination as a cause to fire Golden, or to correct any injustice. Some of us who are particularly uncomfortable with that "race thing" and using the race card, will feign that we would use it (falsely) just to get rid of Golden...
But then if discrimination is true and can't be ignored, then why would we use other truths about the baseless retention that UM Admin can just ignore?
Wouldn't this be about not only using the only issue that can work to fire Golden but an issue that is also true?
Last edited:
