1. No need to rehash the pre-fiasco state of the union. Some people don't like Harsin; Harsin has bumbled and fumbled his way through his first year.
2. The PTB planted a terrible rumor about Harsin and his assistant. Unforgivably crass and cruel as a tactic. Doesn't affect my opinion of Harsin negatively; makes me feel absolutely terrible for the woman dragged into it; amplifies my disgust for the crew that put it into the world.
3. Dueling media tours. All "he said, she said." Everyone continues to believe what they already thought about Harsin. There's a group for whom Harsin tickles their cultural and aesthetic fancies, and they believe he will ultimately succeed. There's a group that thinks he's incapable of doing the job, because he's an asshole. These two views are irreconcilable, because Harsin being an asshole is what the first group most likes about him.
4. It turns out that the despicable rumor has nothing to do with the actual cause. The real predicate cause is allegations of racism, but it might just be that Harsin is an asshole who has no empathy for people with a different background or philosophical orientation. The Bunker assumes that means that the PTB are assembling a flimsy case and presenting it to university officials as sufficient to terminate Harsin for cause, attempting to weaponize cancel culture. I think this is the wrong interpretation. It seems likely to me that Auburn has been or has a reasonable expectation that they will be sued (or receive a formal Title IX complaint) by one or more black former assistants alleging racial discrimination. The PTB are opportunistically using this pending litigation to get Harsin out, but are not responsible for "making the case."
5. If they expect to be sued or have been sued, the University must investigate the allegations. If substantiated (e.g. not outright frivolous), there's probably a second analysis to be done by the University about whether the offending conduct could reasonably be interpreted to be racially motivated or whether it's a more benign "socio-economic" bias. I'm not an employment lawyer, so I'd be curious about the legal standard here. There must be common law on this, and would love info from one of the employment attorneys here. If an organization is sued as a result of the conduct of their employee, is there a defined threshold of non-frivolousness above which the mere existence of the suit can constitute cause under a catch-all provision in an employment contract ("conduct severely detrimental to the university" or similar)? Are there procedural requirements about how to investigate the predicate claims? At one book-end, it's hard for me to believe that, for example, "for cause" is only triggered if the lawsuit is ultimately successful. At the other, it's hard for me to believe the mere existence of a claim is sufficient to trigger a "for cause" termination. Where is the dividing line?
2. The PTB planted a terrible rumor about Harsin and his assistant. Unforgivably crass and cruel as a tactic. Doesn't affect my opinion of Harsin negatively; makes me feel absolutely terrible for the woman dragged into it; amplifies my disgust for the crew that put it into the world.
3. Dueling media tours. All "he said, she said." Everyone continues to believe what they already thought about Harsin. There's a group for whom Harsin tickles their cultural and aesthetic fancies, and they believe he will ultimately succeed. There's a group that thinks he's incapable of doing the job, because he's an asshole. These two views are irreconcilable, because Harsin being an asshole is what the first group most likes about him.
4. It turns out that the despicable rumor has nothing to do with the actual cause. The real predicate cause is allegations of racism, but it might just be that Harsin is an asshole who has no empathy for people with a different background or philosophical orientation. The Bunker assumes that means that the PTB are assembling a flimsy case and presenting it to university officials as sufficient to terminate Harsin for cause, attempting to weaponize cancel culture. I think this is the wrong interpretation. It seems likely to me that Auburn has been or has a reasonable expectation that they will be sued (or receive a formal Title IX complaint) by one or more black former assistants alleging racial discrimination. The PTB are opportunistically using this pending litigation to get Harsin out, but are not responsible for "making the case."
5. If they expect to be sued or have been sued, the University must investigate the allegations. If substantiated (e.g. not outright frivolous), there's probably a second analysis to be done by the University about whether the offending conduct could reasonably be interpreted to be racially motivated or whether it's a more benign "socio-economic" bias. I'm not an employment lawyer, so I'd be curious about the legal standard here. There must be common law on this, and would love info from one of the employment attorneys here. If an organization is sued as a result of the conduct of their employee, is there a defined threshold of non-frivolousness above which the mere existence of the suit can constitute cause under a catch-all provision in an employment contract ("conduct severely detrimental to the university" or similar)? Are there procedural requirements about how to investigate the predicate claims? At one book-end, it's hard for me to believe that, for example, "for cause" is only triggered if the lawsuit is ultimately successful. At the other, it's hard for me to believe the mere existence of a claim is sufficient to trigger a "for cause" termination. Where is the dividing line?
