How does this compare to the Gangelhof paperwriting scandal?

Donate To GopherHole

Ope3 said:
Clem was forced to resign when presented the results of the investigation. What good would it do him to stay on for the month of July when there were no games or practices? Plus he knew he was guilty.

Also look at the obvious, they were facing NCAA sanctions. Ending Clem's tenure as quickly as possible I am sure was to procure the least severe punishment as possible.

They only got an additional 1 Year Ban by the NCAA.
Click to expand...
CYA for what? You don't know nor do I, that Clem was given a choice to resign or terminated in 30 days. Sorry, but a UofM Daily article is the same as WIKI. Again, all I wanted to know was why the academic wasn't fired immediately after the determination of plagiarism.
 

dbmn said:
CYA for what? You don't know nor do I, that Clem was given a choice to resign or terminated in 30 days. Sorry, but a UofM Daily article is the same as WIKI. Again, all I wanted to know was why the academic wasn't fired immediately after the determination of plagiarism.
Click to expand...
It wasn't me that posted the CYA slang or UofM Daily article, so I don't know why you are responding to me.

Regardless, I do not see any reason to dispute the Haskins time line.

Why the plagiarism culprit is given an extra month (I assume just to finish out the academic year) really doesn't matter to me. Maybe had a right to appeal?

No idea. Don't care.
 

ShushPush said:
Wrong. Clem got due process. The whole team and the academic staff received due process.
Click to expand...
I never claimed Clem didn't get due process, but due process doesn't equate to a 30-day notice or NOT. According to a CBS news article on 6/10/99, Clem was given until 6/30/99...20 days. And the other person in this argument said he was given the month of July. His statement doesn't jive with the CBS article saying Clem was done on 6/30/99. So, what source is correct, WIKI, Daily or CBS.
 



dbmn said:
I never claimed Clem didn't get due process, but due process doesn't equate to a 30-day notice or NOT. According to a CBS news article on 6/10/99, Clem was given until 6/30/99...20 days. And the other person in this argument said he was given the month of July. His statement doesn't jive with the CBS article saying Clem was done on 6/30/99. So, what source is correct, WIKI, Daily or CBS.March 10 to June 30 is more than 20 days.
Click to expand...
March 10 to June 30, 1999, is more than 20 days. In fact, it was 112 days.
 



dbmn said:
Well, my comment says 6/10/99 when it was agreed that Clem was gone. To 6/30/99 is 20 days.
Click to expand...
Everyone knew Clem would be gone by 3/11/99. Even Clem knew it.

Everything else is completely trivial.
 



dbmn said:
Well, my comment says 6/10/99 when it was agreed that Clem was gone. To 6/30/99 is 20 days.
Click to expand...
Here is a point you might now be aware of. Clem had to repay part of his 1.075-million-dollar severance package when the U filed in court to recover it the following year. Clem did get representation for that, due process time of more than 20 days, and the court ruled he had to return $815k. In total, he received over a year to rebut anything the U had to say. He had court time. Was heard. Judgment was made. I think I could clearly make the case that Clem had time to file his own case against the U that extended until the statute of limitations. He didn't file that case. Your picky and artificial boundary of 20 days is pointless.
 






ShushPush said:
Here is a point you might now be aware of. Clem had to repay part of his 1.075-million-dollar severance package when the U filed in court to recover it the following year. Clem did get representation for that, due process time of more than 20 days, and the court ruled he had to return $815k. In total, he received over a year to rebut anything the U had to say. He had court time. Was heard. Judgment was made. I think I could clearly make the case that Clem had time to file his own case against the U that extended until the statute of limitations. He didn't file that case. Your picky and artificial boundary of 20 days is pointless.
Click to expand...
IDK about your comments and invalid points to the entire argument going on between 2 people. Originally, I wanted to know why the academic employee was given 30 days before being fired. What does anything you said contribute to answering that question. Answer: nothing.
 


dbmn said:
IDK about your comments and invalid points to the entire argument going on between 2 people. Originally, I wanted to know why the academic employee was given 30 days before being fired. What does anything you said contribute to answering that question. Answer: nothing.
Click to expand...
She was both the whistle blower and the person committing the apparent fraud.
 

BarnBurner said:
They may as well have fired him immediately. He didn't have a prayer. U admin.
Click to expand...
For the Gonzaga game when Clem could look at his bench and see 4 players/2 starters not in uniform due to being suspended by the U Admin, I agree.

It was over for Haskins.
 



dbmn said:
CYA for what? You don't know nor do I, that Clem was given a choice to resign or terminated in 30 days. Sorry, but a UofM Daily article is the same as WIKI. Again, all I wanted to know was why the academic wasn't fired immediately after the determination of plagiarism.
Click to expand...
So now the media is just like wiki? You just can't admit you are wrong.

And nice changing of the story.

Clem cut a deal to resign early.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom