Ben DeLuca fired

[Trotsky]

Every firing of this type represents an institutional failure. A failure to find the right person for the job that his/her superiors want done.

This leads to its own set of problems: y having hired z, y tends to ignore or even suppress problems with z since that would call into question y's competence.  Have a problem with z?  You can't go to y because that would challenge y, but you can't go to y's boss x because x hired y... infinite regress.

[Al DeFlorio]

Regardless of the merits, I think this was done in a very shabby way.

I don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions with the alumni or to explain them. They are big boys and girls, they make decisions have to live with them. Now, those that are asked to donate (who are also big boys and girls) can make their own decisions based on the information that is publically availalbe. I have decided not to give money to the athletics dept this year because of my perception of the shabby way DeLuca was canned.  

I am genuinely puzzled by what you've written.  

1.  You say you "don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions."  

2.  You say that even if the dismissal was "merited" it was handled in a "shabby way."

How, then, should Cornell have handled it differently if it was "merited" given that personnel decisions shouldn't be vetted or explained?

Let me try and explain:

Mr. Deluca was a long time employee who was successful enough to have been recently promoted to lead one of the most prestigious athletic programs at Cornell. I assume he was appointed by Mr. Noel with the approval of the Admin.

His on the field record is hard to argue with.

The press release announcing his dismissal was one of the most blunt instruments of its type I have ever seen. My belief is that it was written harshly to send others a message.

I am forced to one of two conclusions, neither flattering to the admin.

A. There was a serious difference of opinion about how Mr. DeLuca was running the program which might include the "hazing" incident. If this was the case I believe that Mr. DeLuca should have been given and taken an opportunity to resign or lacking that the press release should have had some wording to the effect about differences of opinion about the direction of the program instead of the "don't let the door hit you in the ass" wording.

B. There was some other egregious activity which will never made public that justified the summary dismissal. In that case, Mr. Noel's judgement in appointing him must be brought into question given that both of them have been in the same organization for over a decade.

Every firing of this type represents an institutional failure. A failure to find the right person for the job that his/her superiors want done. In my opinion, the Admin. and Mr. Noel bear a significant portion of the responsibility for what happened and at least for this year I will withhold my financial support because of the poor job they did. I do not think we should reward poor performance by supposed professionals.

Perhaps the most tortuous bit of reasoning I have ever seen, sorry to say--in particular part B.  Suggest you read again the first posting on this thread...carefully.

[Towerroad]

Regardless of the merits, I think this was done in a very shabby way.

I don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions with the alumni or to explain them. They are big boys and girls, they make decisions have to live with them. Now, those that are asked to donate (who are also big boys and girls) can make their own decisions based on the information that is publically availalbe. I have decided not to give money to the athletics dept this year because of my perception of the shabby way DeLuca was canned.  

I am genuinely puzzled by what you've written.  

1.  You say you "don't expect Cornell to vet personnel decisions."  

2.  You say that even if the dismissal was "merited" it was handled in a "shabby way."

How, then, should Cornell have handled it differently if it was "merited" given that personnel decisions shouldn't be vetted or explained?

Let me try and explain:

Mr. Deluca was a long time employee who was successful enough to have been recently promoted to lead one of the most prestigious athletic programs at Cornell. I assume he was appointed by Mr. Noel with the approval of the Admin.

His on the field record is hard to argue with.

The press release announcing his dismissal was one of the most blunt instruments of its type I have ever seen. My belief is that it was written harshly to send others a message.

I am forced to one of two conclusions, neither flattering to the admin.

A. There was a serious difference of opinion about how Mr. DeLuca was running the program which might include the "hazing" incident. If this was the case I believe that Mr. DeLuca should have been given and taken an opportunity to resign or lacking that the press release should have had some wording to the effect about differences of opinion about the direction of the program instead of the "don't let the door hit you in the ass" wording.

B. There was some other egregious activity which will never made public that justified the summary dismissal. In that case, Mr. Noel's judgement in appointing him must be brought into question given that both of them have been in the same organization for over a decade.

Every firing of this type represents an institutional failure. A failure to find the right person for the job that his/her superiors want done. In my opinion, the Admin. and Mr. Noel bear a significant portion of the responsibility for what happened and at least for this year I will withhold my financial support because of the poor job they did. I do not think we should reward poor performance by supposed professionals.

Perhaps the most tortuous bit of reasoning I have ever seen, sorry to say--in particular part B.  Suggest you read again the first posting on this thread...carefully.

I re read it and stand by my assessment. It is my money and my choice just like firing Mr. DeLuca was Mr. Noel and the Admin's. choice.

[Al DeFlorio]

I re read it and stand by my assessment. It is my money and my choice just like firing Mr. DeLuca was Mr. Noel and the Admin's. choice.

I could not care less what you do with your money, and have had no intention of trying to influence that.  Apparently, you've missed the point I've been trying to make, so I'll just stop trying to make it.

[Towerroad]

I re read it and stand by my assessment. It is my money and my choice just like firing Mr. DeLuca was Mr. Noel and the Admin's. choice.

I could not care less what you do with your money, and have had no intention of trying to influence that.  Apparently, you've missed the point I've been trying to make, so I'll just stop trying to make it.

I understood your point.

On Dec 8, 1941 Winston Churchill sent a formal declaration of war to the Ambassador of Japan. The note was filled with diplomatic language and very polite but non the less clear. Churchill was criticized for the polite tone. Churchill waived off these complaints saying "If you are going to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." I think the press release failed this test.

[Al DeFlorio]

I re read it and stand by my assessment. It is my money and my choice just like firing Mr. DeLuca was Mr. Noel and the Admin's. choice.

I could not care less what you do with your money, and have had no intention of trying to influence that.  Apparently, you've missed the point I've been trying to make, so I'll just stop trying to make it.

I understood your point.

On Dec 8, 1941 Winston Churchill sent a formal declaration of war to the Ambassador of Japan. The note was filled with diplomatic language and very polite but non the less clear. Churchill was criticized for the polite tone. Churchill waived off these complaints saying "If you are going to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." I think the press release failed this test.

We'll disagree.

The first paragraph, the only one addressing DeLuca,  is perfectly fine as written.  The first sentence states the action taken.  The second says it was a difficult action to take.  The third asks us to be supportive of DeLuca.

Paragraph two describes the coaching changes taken as a result.  Paragraph three asks, for the good of the players and the program, that people not react as you have.

[Towerroad]

I re read it and stand by my assessment. It is my money and my choice just like firing Mr. DeLuca was Mr. Noel and the Admin's. choice.

I could not care less what you do with your money, and have had no intention of trying to influence that.  Apparently, you've missed the point I've been trying to make, so I'll just stop trying to make it.

I understood your point.

On Dec 8, 1941 Winston Churchill sent a formal declaration of war to the Ambassador of Japan. The note was filled with diplomatic language and very polite but non the less clear. Churchill was criticized for the polite tone. Churchill waived off these complaints saying "If you are going to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." I think the press release failed this test.

We'll disagree.

The first paragraph, the only one addressing DeLuca,  is perfectly fine as written.  The first sentence states the action taken.  The second says it was a difficult action to take.  The third asks us to be supportive of DeLuca.

Paragraph two describes the coaching changes taken as a result.  Paragraph three asks, for the good of the players and the program, that people not react as you have.

Yes, we disagree.

So, if you were me, and felt as I do how would you register your displeasure?

My family contains 3 generations of Cornellians and we are quite fond of the institution in particular its students and alumni but I am under no allusions about how the institution views us. Cornell is a business and we, the alumni, are cows to be milked. The milk is the only language that counts.

I have contributed for 30+ years and will likely continue till I draw my last breath but the few times they have done something that irks me I speak in the only language that matters.

[Rosey]

My family contains 3 generations of Cornellians and we are quite fond of the institution in particular its students and alumni but I am under no allusions about how the institution views us. Cornell is a business and we, the alumni, are cows to be milked.

You say this, and yet you continue to give them money. Strange. "Alma mater" must be the Latin name for some kind of parasitic infection, like toxoplasmosis.

If I give a business money, I expect to get something for it. Cornell may technically be a non-profit, but it is not a charity in any reasonable sense of the word.

[Trotsky]

the few times they have done something that irks me I speak in the only language that matters.

Sadly, in that language 99.99% of us can never speak above a whisper.

But in the end that is the only way to influence such a huge business.

[Towerroad]

My family contains 3 generations of Cornellians and we are quite fond of the institution in particular its students and alumni but I am under no allusions about how the institution views us. Cornell is a business and we, the alumni, are cows to be milked.

You say this, and yet you continue to give them money. Strange. "Alma mater" must be the Latin name for some kind of parasitic infection, like toxoplasmosis.

If I give a business money, I expect to get something for it. Cornell may technically be a non-profit, but it is not a charity in any reasonable sense of the word.

I am a firm believer that the institution provides a social good. In particular it helps people help themselves and prosper. I am happy to support that endeavor so that the institution can provide others with the same advantages it provided me.

That being said, I broke my rose colored glasses a long time ago, Cornell is a business and part of it's revenue stream is gained by milking its alumni. By the way cows (and alumni) are actually pretty happy to be milked on the whole.

[Jim Hyla]

My family contains 3 generations of Cornellians and we are quite fond of the institution in particular its students and alumni but I am under no allusions about how the institution views us. Cornell is a business and we, the alumni, are cows to be milked.

You say this, and yet you continue to give them money. Strange. "Alma mater" must be the Latin name for some kind of parasitic infection, like toxoplasmosis.

If I give a business money, I expect to get something for it. Cornell may technically be a non-profit, but it is not a charity in any reasonable sense of the word.

If you don't feel you get something back, then don't do it. Some of us do feel we not only got something, but continue to receive benefits, and as Towerroad said, feel that helping the next generations is useful. I don't expect to like or agree with all that they do. But then I don't like, or agree, with all that anyone, or any business  I know does. That doesn't stop me from liking them, nor from helping them, nor necessarily from buying from them again.

[Rosey]

Some of us do feel we not only got something, but continue to receive benefits, and as Towerroad said, feel that helping the next generations is useful.

Thanks for implying that I don't, Jim. In fact, I agree with all of what you said here. I simply don't think that giving more money to the beast is helpful. Without getting into a whole thing about this, I'll just provide one example: given the efficiency of the wealth extraction machine that is the financial aid system, money going to (say) grants doesn't actually offset costs for any student; rather, it increases the amount that the university spends. Just like any other good or service, the price of a Cornell education is only marginally related to its cost.

I feel strongly that a more useful way to help the next generation of students would be to figure out a way for Cornell to return to its educational mission, and provide a meaningful education of premium quality at a reasonable cost. Refocusing higher education away from the business of expansion and competition for research dollars and for bright minds that couldn't teach a fish how to swim, and toward the mission of education.

But this discussion probably belongs elsewhere.

[Johnny 5]

It "astounds" me that someone believes he's entitled to the "facts" regarding a personnel decision involving an employer and its employee.

Ouch, that hurt so bad I think I'm going to have to check for bleeding.
Guess I'll just have to file the episode under, "Kennedy/Hoffa".
Lo siento, mucho.

Do I hafta return my Mensa card, too!?

::thud::

[Jim Hyla]

Some of us do feel we not only got something, but continue to receive benefits, and as Towerroad said, feel that helping the next generations is useful.

Thanks for implying that I don't, Jim. In fact, I agree with all of what you said here. I simply don't think that giving more money to the beast is helpful. Without getting into a whole thing about this, I'll just provide one example: given the efficiency of the wealth extraction machine that is the financial aid system, money going to (say) grants doesn't actually offset costs for any student; rather, it increases the amount that the university spends. Just like any other good or service, the price of a Cornell education is only marginally related to its cost.

I feel strongly that a more useful way to help the next generation of students would be to figure out a way for Cornell to return to its educational mission, and provide a meaningful education of premium quality at a reasonable cost. Refocusing higher education away from the business of expansion and competition for research dollars and for bright minds that couldn't teach a fish how to swim, and toward the mission of education.

But this discussion probably belongs elsewhere.

You said that if you give, you expect to get something back. I said some of us give, not only because we get something back but also because of trying to help future generations. I did not mean to imply that you never got anything from Cornell.

It would be nice for you to "figure out a way for Cornell to return to its educational mission, and provide a meaningful education of premium quality at a reasonable cost." If you come up with a solution, tell me and I might enthusiastically endorse it, with money even. Short of a better solution, I choose to not sit on my hands, and my money, but to give in the hope that it might help fulfill that goal. I don't know that it is the best path, just that I don't know any other. The reason that HYP have been able to accomplish a lot toward that end, is because they had a huge headstart in the giving game. I don't know that I have a lot more to say, but no one has ever said I was short on words, so if you want to carry on this discussion elsewhere, that's OK.

[Rosey]

The reason that HYP have been able to accomplish a lot toward that end, is because they had a huge headstart in the giving game.

I'll break my rule to address this one statement, because I think it might give you an idea of where I'm coming from. HYP annoy the shit out of me because they have absolutely no excuse to be charging tuition at all. All three could cover every penny they receive in tuition by simply increasing disbursement from their endowments by a fraction of a percentage point. Cornell doesn't have that ability yet, but the proof that the business of higher education is primarily business, not education, is right there for everyone to see. When those schools stop charging tuition, maybe I'd then contribute to Cornell's endowment to get them into the same position. Until then, I have no confidence that any of these jokers have the right mission targeted.