Fired for Cussin'.

[Lost Student]

C'mon, RF. The word you are looking for is imply, not infer. Now get it right or pay the price.

Second, BYU is not commenting on private matters. They are only commenting on the guy's public statements.

[RobinFinderson]

LOL! Another water tight conclusion!

Here is the water-tight argument that neither you nor Jeff will answer directly:

1. Implying that the university possess a personnel record that establishes a pattern of misconduct IS 'comment on personnel issues?'

2 Carri Jenkins, official rep, has noted in the media that the university has a policy to NOT comment on personnel issues.

3. Thus the university has acted unethically, based on its own stated principles.


You and Jeff seem to be arguing a different point, which seems to be that the University should be able to defend itself when a disgruntled employee goes public. I don't disagree with this concept.

[RobinFinderson]

C'mon, RF. The word you are looking for is imply, not infer. Now get it right or pay the price.

Second, BYU is not commenting on private matters. They are only commenting on the guy's public statements.

Lost_Student, you are blowing holes in creekster's argument that no one else is reading this.

I accept the infer/imply correction. It is an obvious mistake and I know better.

As to your second point, this is where the issue gets sticky. I'm not sure that the university can comment on the guy's public statement without referencing private matters. The university has implied that they have a record detailing a pattern of misconduct, which is a clear reference to personnel matters that were heretofore unknown to the public.

[UtahDan]

C'mon, RF. The word you are looking for is imply, not infer. Now get it right or pay the price.

Second, BYU is not commenting on private matters. They are only commenting on the guy's public statements.

This is salt in a wound for me. I crusaded for years to get people to stop saying infer when they mean imply. But go have a look a Merriam Websters. It has been so thoroughly misused at this point that one meaning of infer is now a synonym for imply.

[wuapinmon]

I agree with Robin.

[RobinFinderson]

I agree with Robin.

It doesn't get more water-tight than that folks!

[hello]

I agree with Robin.

I do to.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have been chuckling about this thread all through lunch. All this hysteria because BYU denied that they fired someone without cause. Those bastards!!

It is also fun to think of the logical extensions to the RF theory. Suppose employee B steals computer equipment, lies to and manipulates his co-workers, and watches porn in his office rather than doing his job. He gets fired and then goes to the press claiming that BYU fired him for voting for Obama. BYU responds "No, that is not correct." ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE!

[wuapinmon]

I have been chuckling about this thread all through lunch. All this hysteria because BYU denied that they fired someone without cause. Those bastards!!

It is also fun to think of the logical extensions to the RF theory. Suppose employee B steals computer equipment, lies to and manipulates his co-workers, and watches porn in his office rather than doing his job. He gets fired and then goes to the press claiming that BYU fired him for voting for Obama. BYU responds "No, that is not correct." ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE!

You're not getting the point. Of course BYU can say it isn't correct. It's unethical to say that you don't comment on personnel matters, and then say it's not correct. It's so simple I don't see why you can't get it. Employee B opens himself up to criticism the moment he goes running to the press crying foul. BYU is free and clear to defend itself, but when it says that it doesn't comment, but then states that what he said is incorrect, you have violated your own policy, which is unethical, but not immoral. There is a difference.

[Moliere]

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

Firing the guy infers this. Maybe BYU shouldn't fire the guy for fear of inferring that he sucked at his job.

[RobinFinderson]

I have been chuckling about this thread all through lunch. All this hysteria because BYU denied that they fired someone without cause. Those bastards!!

It is also fun to think of the logical extensions to the RF theory. Suppose employee B steals computer equipment, lies to and manipulates his co-workers, and watches porn in his office rather than doing his job. He gets fired and then goes to the press claiming that BYU fired him for voting for Obama. BYU responds "No, that is not correct." ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE! ETHICAL LAPSE!

Hysteria... I don't think that word means what you think it means.

No one is saying that BYU fired someone without cause.

YOU have made the strongest arguments for following a professional protocol when dealing with these situations. Professional protocol does not require the University to say anything at all in the situation where the professor gets canned for using university equipment to watch porn in his office. But the university could simply claim, "The university takes the dismissal of employees very seriously. If the person in question chooses to pursue a review of his situation, we are confident that an independent review panel will find that the university followed professional protocol in establishing just cause for the individual's dismissal. The university will not comment on the specific allegations presented by professor so-and-so in the press because it is against university policy to comment on personnel matters."

Done. Clean, professional, and in accordance with the university's own stated standards.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're not getting the point. Of course BYU can say it isn't correct. It's unethical to say that you don't comment on personnel matters, and then say it's not correct. It's so simple I don't see why you can't get it. Employee B opens himself up to criticism the moment he goes running to the press crying foul. BYU is free and clear to defend itself, but when it says that it doesn't comment, but then states that what he said is incorrect, you have violated your own policy, which is unethical, but not immoral. There is a difference.

Oh, I understand the gist of the argument. I just think it is FOS. You and Robin have latched on to this line from the article:

BYU officials say they can't talk about personnel matters...

and turned it completely on its head. Claiming that an accusation (one that makes BYU look not only petty and silly, but potentially in violation of its own policies) is incorrect does not violate any ethical principle and does not contradict BYU policy. They did not open up this guy's file and release it. They simply denied his public accusation which unfairly cast BYU in a negative light.

Please note that the insert above was not even a direct quote from Jenkins, rather it was paraphrased by the reporter. I will give you the same challenge I gave RF: show me the written BYU policy on the matter that would make this as black and white and you want it to be.

[TripletDaddy]

BYU should take Boylen's approach after Jimmer almost dropped 50 on the Utes in the Dumpsman: "I'm not going to comment on that..."

[Pheidippides]

You're not getting the point. Of course BYU can say it isn't correct. It's unethical to say that you don't comment on personnel matters, and then say it's not correct. It's so simple I don't see why you can't get it. Employee B opens himself up to criticism the moment he goes running to the press crying foul. BYU is free and clear to defend itself, but when it says that it doesn't comment, but then states that what he said is incorrect, you have violated your own policy, which is unethical, but not immoral. There is a difference.

Ethics are 100% subjective on some level, so I generally reject blanket statements of "this is unethical". And in my hierarchy of ethical concerns about BYU, this ranks somewhere between ass pimple and oversized mole.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hysteria... I don't think that word means what you think it means.

No one is saying that BYU fired someone without cause.

YOU have made the strongest arguments for following a professional protocol when dealing with these situations. Professional protocol does not require the University to say anything at all in the situation where the professor gets canned for using university equipment to watch porn in his office. But the university could simply claim, "The university takes the dismissal of employees very seriously. If the person in question chooses to pursue a review of his situation, we are confident that an independent review panel will find that the university followed professional protocol in establishing just cause for the individual's dismissal. The university will not comment on the specific allegations presented by professor so-and-so in the press because it is against university policy to comment on personnel matters."

Done. Clean, professional, and in accordance with the university's own stated standards.

Fascinating how your position has evolved over the course of the thread. First they were unfairly calling him a liar. Now you are simply opting for a different (longer) wording of the response where the part I bolded clearly says the same thing that they said ("There is more to the story").