(06-07-2018 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

I have seen "all-gender" bathrooms in practice and would have no problem with them if they became the norm, whether through law or custom. I expect to be at a place soon where "all-gender" bathrooms are standard. Not just single user, but multiple users. No problem.

Being openly and devoutly Christian didn't seem to hurt Tom Landry's coaching. Or Hatfield's. Never seemed to affect Staubach's passing. Never heard a recruit say they selected a school based on the coach's faith or lack of it. Unless, maybe, it is Liberty or BYU.

I have no dog in this hunt. If it is Berkman, then I will support Coach Berkman, even if he comes out in favor of higher taxes or kneeling for the anthem. If it is Coach Other, I will support Coach Other. Let's just get a dadgum coach.

To be clear - the issue isn't with Berkman's faith, it is with the policy he advocated for, so the examples you provided don't really address the issue. I mean, faith already plays a big role in the lives of a lot of our athletes on campus, and it plays a public role. No one has complained about that before, and likely won't in the future. The controversy is over the policy debate, not his faith.

And I, as many others do, do care about what our coaches advocate for in the public realm as it connects back to Rice and will influence the perception of our university. In Lance's case, I do not think his previous stance should be a disqualifier, but I do think that there are cases where someone's previous actions/stances should be a disqualifier. But it is definitely a case-by-case basis.

Based on your final comment, do you support a win-at-all-costs mentality that doesn't care about how a coach acts, recruits, etc? At Rice, we generally seem to have a line with our coaches, most often centered on recruiting/player development/cheating. Lance is just the first case that I can remember where politics are involved in the discussion.

I support a win philosophy, done within the rules. Therefore, not at all costs.

I really don't don't care about our coaches personal politics, as long as he can win with them or despite them. But anyways, first and foremost, no cheating.