They did. Dan Bernstein spent at least a full day attacking Hank rather than discussing any of the points he made. He attacked him and spent the entire day after it came out doing that in his arrogant pompous way.
Hankwitz is laying out the truth on Twitter right now
- Thread starter Chucksizzle1
- Start date
Bernstein is not a real member of the media, he is a buffoon on talk radio. I've hated him from the moment they put him on the air with Terry Boers. Pompous ass is right.
There ae a whole bunch of assumptions in your post. I'm reacting to them as if I am a juror, not an attorney.
First of all, NU defines hazing in its Student Code of Conduct. What happened in the football program does not fit that definition. The State of Illinois defines hazing in a statute written to protect victims. What happened at NU does not fit that definition either.
Equally important, Schill fired Fitzgerald for "widespread" hazing in the football program. There are many problems with that. "Widespread" Hazing requires a lot of victims, victims who say they suffered because of mistreatment, treatment that was malicious in nature, as opposed to disciplinary. In other words, it is in the eye of the beholder and depends on context. You cannot presume to know how someone "should have felt" and base disciplinary actions on your opinion. It is worth pointing out that three members of the (men's) football team are suing NU based on the Illinois Gender Violence Act, so obviously what those 3 view as "sexual" in nature may not be viewed the same way by the vast majority of their teammates.
Additionally, Fitzgerald's "Leadership Council" was well known to the administration, who signed him to a long extension, essentially supporting the approach. A new president who has no knowledge of the football program has no reasonable grounds to fire a coach for following procedures approved by his predecessor. (I'm just going with what strikes me as "fair.")
If there really were questionnaires for the players to report (anonymously) anything that bothered them about the football program and nobody reported anything, Fitzgerald is almost completely exonerated and the two week suspension is just about right.
No. Come on now. We’d all like to see the report but don’t be obtuse and facetious. Though there’s at least 11 victim former players who will see subpoenas, plus accused players, coaching staff, support staff, and admins. If there’s no settlement then all the laundry comes out, and not just football’s, but other sports, and the athletic department’s too. When pointed questions get asked about Kenosha is when someone on the stand will face the heat.
My point is you have no idea what is in that report and neither do any of us. The only thing you can extract from that report is that some form of hazing occurred, which really no one is disputing, and that FItz likely did not know about it. On that basis alone, you cannot conclude that Fitz should have been fired. Setting aside Richardson’s account as printed by The Daily which I give zero credibility to, The rest of what has been reported either confirms the conclusions of the summary report or provides other accounts which in my opinion make the decision to fire Fitz even more ridiculous then it was the day it was made.
Who is in charge of the football program again? I think there are about 5MM reasons why PF should have known.
No, what the report summary said was that there was no direct evidence of Fitz knowing about the hazing. That is entirely different from what you are claiming. If you don’t think he should have been fired for losing control of the locker room in this regard, fine. But don’t twist the facts.
Hence the use of the qualifier "likely". I, like most people in this country, believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. No evidence that he knew about it, his public statement saying he did not know about it and statements from Hank suggesting Fitz had a rigorous support system in place to prevent and create a way for players to report incidents of hazing if they somehow did occur is good enough for me. Fitz has more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
It's not surprising to me how the aftermath of this event has shaken out. Those so called fans like yourself who have hated Fitz and reveled when the program struggled have used this event to pile on Fitz, shit on the staff and the program. Those fans who thoroughly enjoyed the unprecedented run of stability and success that Fitz brought to the program on and off the field have continued to support him or at least demanded more information before judging whether his termination was warranted.
Last edited:
I agree that the anti-Fitzgerald crowd has been embarrassingly biased in the whole matter.
Very short memories, no appreciation of how Fitzgerald improved NU's national image, combined with an attacking agenda that has nothing to do with football.
But - we can't say definitively if Fitz knew about some of the things that were going on...
or how likely it was that he knew. (That's one way Schill was wrong - you actually need evidence that Fitzgerald knew what was going on and how it was affecting players)
My guess is Fitzgerald probably did know about some things and (like almost everyone) considered them to be no big deal.
If Fitz specifically ordered the "running" and told the players what to do, then he should be fired.
Short of that some discipline or sensitivity training was in order. (what the investigators recommended).
And players should have been disciplined as well.
He was not a defendant in a criminal proceeding. He was an employee of a private organization. Presumption of innocence doesn't enter into it.
I don’t think the fire Fitz crowd (for performance related issues), of which I was a member, hated Fitz. I will always respect and admire Fitz for what he did for the university,, but I don’t think he adjusted well to the changing landscape and should have
Been let go after the 2022 season
There was a contract. If the university had bought out his contract, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And he also doesn’t believe in that presumption - not as a matter of right for all people - you simply have to inquire about certain people to figure that out.
If NU is going to terminate Pat Fitzgerald for cause, they better have supporting evidence to back it up. Not only will that be necessary to justify their decision in the wrongful termination civil suit that will be filed, it is also necessary to justify the decision with the alumni and the fan base.
Sure it does. Is Fitz guilty under the terms of the contract so that he could be fired for cause?
There is no" guilty or innocent" in contract law. Remember, I was responding to "presumption of innocence" argument - which does not apply in this situation. And I doubt Fitz will argue there was no cause. I would guess this will be a breach of the oral "two week suspension" argument.
As I said above, I doubt this will be a wrongful termination case but rather a breach of contract action. As for convincing the alumni, as one myself I doubt the majority care much at all about the firing of the coach of a program with this crap going on. (Hell, most probably don't care about football, period.) Regardless of whether he knew anything. I am pretty sure the subsection of alums on here is not representative of the whole.
I would assume the for cause language is pretty broad and it seems there are plenty of potential witnesses to substantiate the case for termination. The other is straightforward. Did the conversation/agreement about the two week suspension constitute a verbal modification of contract, and was that then breached by the termination?
I used that expression not solely in a legal context. I used it to reinforce the premise that if NU is going to fire its golden boy for cause because of these hazing allegations, they better have evidence that he knew these things were happening and/or that his actions contributed to an environment where these behaviors were condoned. I’ve seen no evidence presented of either.
You assume more about the contract than other lawyers here (like rwhitney014) have been willing to assume.
I would think it would be useful to pursue both avenues. It's like Chauvin getting convicted of manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree murder all at the same time.
Also, I find it very believable that Fitz would want to fight the "for cause" part for the sake of his reputation, for his honor. The money might be of secondary importance to him.
Dan Webb: “we call Mr. Michael Schill to the stand. Mr. Schill you hired a respected law firm to conduct a review of the hazing allegations against Pat Fitzgerald and the football program. The firm conducted a 6 month investigation and provided you a report. After receiving the report, you gave Mr. Fitzgerald a 2 week suspension . 3 days later you changed your mind and fired him. Why!”
Mr. Still: “uh….”
Yup these are just (somewhat educated) guesses. I'll make another: there will not be a complaint filed, and much more certainly, not be any trial.
Correct, this is about much more than just money for Fitz. He will fight to clear his name.
Last edited:
Did they? I don’t know one of their names. Has there been any follow up to the original story?
Seriously, where are the follow ups? If this was about the truth, why not more follow up stories? Do they not think that interviewing Hank or Jerry Brown would be relevant to the story? Their inaction is very telling.
I believe Kalyn Kahler’s reporting of a long-standing tradition of hazing within the NU program, starting in a fairly friendly way in Kenosha and, escalating to something that verged on sexual assault in the last decade. These traditions began around the time when Pat Fitzgerald enrolled at Northwestern.
I also believe Lou’s initial report that running players ‘was well know within the program’.
I also believe the dozens of former players who have said that Fitz had a great positive impact on them.
I also believe Hankwitz’s summary that several protections were in place.
I also think that the first two points outweigh the fourth point. I believe the first two points indicate that the policies in fourth point failed. Whatever policies were in place, the culture was such that the scout team players and injured players and backups that felt victimized did not believe their experiences would be taken seriously.
Fitz insisted during a six-month investigation that he knew nothing. Based on the second point, this seems highly improbable.
“Knew or should have known.” He should have taken accountability, even if he, improbably, had no idea.
I also believe Lou’s initial report that running players ‘was well know within the program’.
I also believe the dozens of former players who have said that Fitz had a great positive impact on them.
I also believe Hankwitz’s summary that several protections were in place.
I also think that the first two points outweigh the fourth point. I believe the first two points indicate that the policies in fourth point failed. Whatever policies were in place, the culture was such that the scout team players and injured players and backups that felt victimized did not believe their experiences would be taken seriously.
Fitz insisted during a six-month investigation that he knew nothing. Based on the second point, this seems highly improbable.
“Knew or should have known.” He should have taken accountability, even if he, improbably, had no idea.
I, for one, do not care about the culpability of the coaching staff.
The players are the ones who dishonored the entire university.
The players are the ones who dishonored the entire university.
Nope, though it’s nice to interpet that way if you’d like.
Hazing happened. It was pervasive. It was damaging to some. It was all in good fun for others, I guess.
The initial whistleblower probably embellished some things. The litigants have probably embellished some things.
But The Athletic’s reporting was strong, and Lou’s source treated hazing in a basically matter-of-fact way.
Fitz should have taken accountability. It is my belief that he would have a job if he’d acted like a leader and acknowledged his failings. Because he failed.
Again, accountability can either be “I knew but I didn’t realize how bad it had gotten”, or “I didn’t know but it was my job to know.” But he chose 🙈🙈🙈🙈.
Personally, I think he probably lied, but it doesn’t matter. If he was truthful, he simply had to take the final step and say “but it’s on me.”
This 💯. That’s leadership. He’d still have a job if he said either of those statements re: accountability.
Reminds of how many times PF said things like pointing thumbs, starts w the coaches, will never happen again…and what changed…not a GD thing. It was lip service. And it flies because having such a clean program trump performance for so many.
Live by the clean sword, die by the infection when it’s not really so clean.
That quote from corbi about pancake humping is nothing demonstrates how perverted the thinking of the other side has become.
Again, put that on a peewee field, still not a problem? What if the defensive player is a girl, still no? Or is peewee not where the fundamentals are taught so not ok there, but becomes ok…in high school? College? Does the player’s sexuality on either side make any difference?
Having now read Coach Hank's tweet, if you take his tweet at face value, what additional measures do you believe Fitz should have taken?
(And if you don't take Hank's tweet at face value, what do you take issue with?)
Latest posts
-
-
Gronowski staying at South Dakota State
- Latest: Purple Pile Driver
-
-