Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:03:01 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Eric J. Burton wrote:
> I am not sure what you guys expect from my school in the law suit process? The NCAA over stepped its bounds with its policy, our school isn't going to just back down and change our logo because the NCAA wrote a policy. Other schools did that is there perogative. Also, I am sure our lawyers will conduct their selves in a professional manner. Its been said that there are a lot of other interested parties that are supporting the school behind the scenes. I don't think the NCAA wants this case to go to court.
>
What I actually "expect" is a judicial contest conducted in a
professional manner by attorneys and a court who, frankly Scarlett,
don't give a damn, . . . at least not in the sense that they're
emotionally tied to their preferred outcome just because some represent
one side professionally. In that respect, the appropriate decision
process for a fairly significant social issue will differ from the
various processes of those who are high on emotion or low on
consideration for others or both, for whatever motives. However, an out
of court compromise would fall short of "deciding the issue."
What I'd "like" is the benefit of a written decision from a fairly high
court, setting forth all the relevant arguments and the basis for the
decision. I'd expect to find things I hadn't considered and reading it
makes for a wild Saturday evening now that Saturday Night Live turned
mediocre. I don't know who foots the legal bill for that. It's
somewhat inequitable if it falls to the people of North Dakota while we
all benefit, though I don't see much benefit from a state court decision
and none at all from an out of court compromise. Don't look to me for
dollars; I'm saving mine for my school's legal fight if we ever find
there's actually one wolverine still living in the state and he's
fightin' mad and won't take it any longer.
I can't cavalierly jump to the conclusion that the NCAA "over stepped
its bounds with its policy." There have obviously been many schools
that voluntarily initiated such changes because they felt it was the
morally responsible thing to do. Presumably, some didn't really need to
go to the length they did but considered it the better path. Just as
surely, there are bound to be some that should have but didn't. I don't
think it's unreasonable for an association providing means for increased
visibility to its voluntarily subscribed members to contemplate the way
it allows its resources to be used. I can understand a leadership group
with the highest credentials for competence deliberating the questions
of where the line should be drawn for identifying those "who should have
but didn't" and what moral or legal responsibility the association
leadership has for initiating a process for getting a properly drawn
line. I see the court process as an expected component of the
line-drawing process that affords the obligatory due process. If this
policy was actually initiated by a bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant
stumble-bums, then that bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums
has credit due them for stumbling into the same decision that would be
justified for a capable leadership group. As much as I might hate
seeing money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums get credit by pure luck,
well, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bob Griebel
|
|
|