eastcoastcal said:
I think one important part of the article that a lot of people might skim over is this:
Quote:
The weeks following the firing and release of the report have seen prominent financial donors to the university and its athletic program joining current and former Golden Bears swimmers and their parents in calling for the immediate dismissal of Knowlton and Simon-O'Neill, who critics allege ignored or failed to effectively address repeated credible allegations of bullying and harassment against McKeever
This is big- the donors are ultimately key and between the gross mismanagement of the department, plus the horrible handling of the McKeever situation, it may result in parting ways (whether by dismissal or reduced buyout, as WIAF said). If donors are truly turning on the AD (and it would seem that way), this is huge
#FallOfTheEmpire
#ConArtistBecomesGoneArtist
Again, I'm impressed by our students taking an interest in these matters, and their willingness to acquire knowledge.
One not so easy way to end this is for some large angel donor to write a check, fire JK w/o cause, give him his full buy-out and be done with him. Typically there is what economists label an opportunity cost to spending that money, as the donor likely would have been inclined to spend the money on something more productive for the teams, such as funding a new basketball coach. Also, you need find someone who is philosophically willing to fund a buy-out JK doesn't deserve in most people's eyes.
JK probably is toast in the long run because most donors (at least all the ones I know) have turned on him, and any new Chancellor will want their own person to run athletics and not someone as controversial and unqualified for a P5 job as JK. You don't need to read an article to know that, and it has do to with far more beyond the women's swimming team - there are more views on McKeever among the donor base that are very different takes than those provided by Reid articles (there is a consensus that the situation was mishandled).
A formal investigation was required for McKeever under Cal's own guidelines. I get that people don't get this, but there is nothing I can do about that). That could have been done in-house, but the Chancellor agreed to do this with an outside law firm based on the advice of in-house counsel, with litigation likely, and because internal investigation at Cal have been a crap show. I'm not really going to get into the technical privledges and advantages of using independent counsel, but they almost are always used by institutional clients once the exposure gets big.
But in Cal's case there is a long history of a complete crap show on internal investigations. For example, after dragging out investigations over long time periods, the investigations tended to show violations of campus rules, but somehow always seemed to come to recommendations that staff should face severe penalties, while for violations of the same rules (and some fairly egregious conduct often) that faculty members should face far less penalties. Cal's investigations were so bad and took so long, that the federal government launched an investigation. "I
nvestigators spent four years looking into the issues and made nine campus visits. They reviewed more than 200 cases, and found in some instances that [Cal] didn't provide students enough information about their rights, took too long to resolve the cases, and provided inappropriate deference to [those with more important jobs at Cal]." [From DOE/DOJ press release in 2018]. Cal was forced to enter into a consent decree in 2019. Indeed, the botching of internal investigations by Cal and alleged misuse of funds was what brought down prior Chancellor Nick Dirks. America's Top Public University Has a Major Sexual ...https://www.motherjones.com politics 2016/04 cal... (thought you guys that like Reid would enjoy this "objective" reporting source that is known of presenting issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writer's opinion or personal beliefs).
With this background why would anyone leave a formal investigation of any serious matter to the discredited internal investigators at Cal? For the most serious matters, separate independent counsel with little or no previous connection to the company is the preferred choice because of this credibility factor and the signal it sends to key constituents that the University is completely committed to objectively determining the facts and addressing the matter, and in the case of Cal, probably in a more timely manner.
In any event, the donors are more interested in overall team performances, particularly in the revenue sports, the handling of department finances, the lack of insight into the changing collegiate sports environment, etc. Women's swimming does not drive the bus. And what does it say when the Chancellor (not the AD) has to take on thorny issues like conference realignment?
Like I previously suggested, there are a lot of legal issues that threaten to delay things, absent an angel donor. The Chancellor is a quick study, and she obviously seems willing to get advice from outside people and take non major issues, starting with conference realignment, in the interim. It just seems idiotic that it has come to this. The Chancellor already has a lot on her plate, starting with students finding a place to live. My own personal opinion is that JK will be gone before a new Chancellor formally takes office (note not a fact, just personal opinion).
