Fired for Cussin'.

[creekster]

BYU has inferred that they possess a record indicating that Devine has exhibited a pattern of poor/inappropriate work conduct. Moreover they have publicly stated that Devine is misrepresenting the facts in the situation, calling into question his integrity.

This wasn't necessary. It constitutes 'commenting on personnel matters.' And it isn't trivial, when considered from Devine's position.

As Jeff keeps pointing out, there are systems to address these situations. Revealing to the world that the worker is misrepresenting the events sets up an impossible to prove 'he-said-she-said' situation that is not a part of the official system for dealing with these kinds of things. BYU should have simply let the system work its way out without any further comment, except to point to the rules of the system.

So your 'water tight' point comes down not to a claim of illegal or unethical conduct, or even a violation of a self-imposed policy. Instead it comes down to your personal belief that BYU should have done something different. What a surprise. Of course, you can believe whatever you would like. No argument there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

BYU has inferred that they possess a record indicating that Devine has exhibited a pattern of poor/inappropriate work conduct. Moreover they have publicly stated that Devine is misrepresenting the facts in the situation, calling into question his integrity.

This wasn't necessary. It constitutes 'commenting on personnel matters.' And it isn't trivial, when considered from Devine's position.

As Jeff keeps pointing out, there are systems to address these situations. Revealing to the world that the worker is misrepresenting the events sets up an impossible to prove 'he-said-she-said' situation that is not a part of the official system for dealing with these kinds of things. BYU should have simply let the system work its way out without any further comment, except to point to the rules of the system.

:igiveup:

[RobinFinderson]

Nonsense. See creekster's post above. Once he makes an inaccurate statement they have every right to correct the record.

I suspect they have the 'every right' to say whatever they want about Devine. This isn't a question about 'rights'. This is a question about what is right.

From the beginning I have said that BYU could SHOW us that Devine was lying, and that would be fine, because Devine has chosen to make this a public issue.

Or,

BYU could point to its own policy, and otherwise remain silent about the issue, which is also an ethically acceptable position.

BYU chose something in the middle, and that is the problem.

Assuming Devine is being honest, he should recognize that his character has been publicly maligned and he should pursue recourse. Then light would be shone on his personnel record and the public would be able to see wether or not BYU had actually established a pattern of misconduct. Because of the lowly position we are talking about, I would not be surprised if the personnel record was relatively empty, but that sure isn't what the university has implied.

[RobinFinderson]

:igiveup:

You're just too cool for school.

[RobinFinderson]

So your 'water tight' point comes down not to a claim of illegal or unethical conduct, or even a violation of a self-imposed policy. Instead it comes down to your personal belief that BYU should have done something different. What a surprise. Of course, you can believe whatever you would like. No argument there.

Trying to make ethical choices means trying to make principled choices. Those principles might be general social principles that are broadly accepted, or they might be self-imposed principles.

Carri Jenkins says that BYU has a principle of not commenting on personnel issues. Fine.

Is stating that Devine is misrepresenting the facts 'commenting on personnel issues?' The university is using its credibility to cast aspersions on Devine. I think that that is an obvious 'comment on personnel issues.'

[creekster]

Trying to make ethical choices means trying to make principled choices. Those principles might be general social principles that are broadly accepted, or they might be self-imposed principles.

Carri Jenkins says that BYU has a principle of not commenting on personnel issues. Fine.

Is stating that Devine is misrepresenting the facts 'commenting on personnel issues?' The university is using its credibility to cast aspersions on Devine. I think that that is an obvious 'comment on personnel issues.'

Yup, that's water tight, all right.

[RobinFinderson]

Yup, that's water tight, all right.

Is inferring that the university possess a personnel record that establishes a pattern of misconduct a 'comment on personnel issues?'

[EuropeanFootballMale]

BYU chose something in the middle, and that is the problem.

So it would be more ethical for BYU to publish a laundry list of this guy's "offenses" (once he brings the subject up) then to do what they did?
Nonesense.

[RobinFinderson]

So it would be more ethical for BYU to publish a laundry list of this guy's "offenses" (once he brings the subject up) then to do what they did?
Nonesense.

As a matter of institutional ethics, that depends on BYU's principles. I'm judging the institution by their own stated principles, as suggested by their spokesperson in the media (Ms. Jenkins).

I can imagine a different set of noncontradictory principles that would still pass legal muster, and would allow an institution to make the employee's personnel record public in situations where the employee had publicly maligned the institution. I don't think that such a policy would be a good idea, but it could be done ethically, if employees were informed about the policy before being hired.

[RobinFinderson]

Yup, that's water tight, all right.

Is inferring that the university possess a personnel record that establishes a pattern of misconduct a 'comment on personnel issues?'

Come on creek, it is a yes/no question.

[creekster]

Come on creek, it is a yes/no question.

It is an irrelevant question, but it sure holds its water!

[RobinFinderson]

It is an irrelevant question, but it sure holds its water!

If the question at hand is whether or not BYU acted in accordance with its own stated policy, as described by its official spokesperson, then how is it an irrelevant question?

[creekster]

If the question at hand is whether or not BYU acted in accordance with its own stated policy, as described by its official spokesperson, then how is it an irrelevant question?

Read the thread. You are repeating yourself and I promise no one else is reading it. We have said what we need to say.

[RobinFinderson]

Read the thread. You are repeating yourself and I promise no one else is reading it. We have said what we need to say.

LOL! We both know exactly why you won't answer the question.

[creekster]

LOL! We both know exactly why you won't answer the question.

LOL! Another water tight conclusion!