bleedsmaroonandgold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2011
- Messages
- 7,213
- Reaction score
- 2,616
- Points
- 113
All of the armchair quarterbacks who post here are hilarious. What was the search committee supposed to do in order to determine that, at some indeterminate point in the future, Norwood Teague would royally screw up and turn out to be a sexual predator? Get their crystal ball repaired? Who here has read the entire 743-page external review, in particular the 12-page section regarding the hiring and vetting of Norwood Teague? I have. Here it is, I suggest that you read it: https://netfiles.umn.edu/regents/bor_-_dec_2015_-_special_meeting.compressed.pdf. These passages in particular are my favorites:
"The External Review Team concludes that the hiring and vetting process that resulted in Norwood Teague’s hire was generally consistent with comparable searches. The length of the process (approximately 11 weeks) and its confidential nature are consistent with Athletics Director searches at comparable institutions."
and
"The External Review Team concludes that had the form or the Candidate Questionnaire clearly called for the disclosure of all prior complaints, including those with and without merit, the Search Committee should have expected to learn of the existence of the VCU complaint. However, it is unclear what impact, if any, the disclosure of an internal complaint regarding salary and court-time would have had on the selection process on April 20, 2012, particularly
where the former employer found the complaint to be without merit. Moreover, even if University had known of the VCU complaint when Teague was hired, which it did not, or the University had learned more about the nature or lack of merit of the complaint when its existence was disclosed to it in 2013, this knowledge would not have foreshadowed that Teague would later engage in conduct of the type that occurred on July 15, 2015. It appears
unlikely that additional vetting by the Search Committee or Parker Executive Search would have uncovered evidence of conduct that Teague had engaged in sexual harassment while at his prior employers."
To be fair, I mean, these were professional litigators who were paid $690,000 over the course of several months to conduct this external review. I'm sure that all of you know better.
Stop trying to blame the U and place the blame where it accurately, and solely, lies: on the shoulders of Norwood Teague.
Can we blame the U for not taking action when it was reported to the U that Ellis was showing porn to coworkers and work-related contacts at a work event back in 2013?