Ah, well good for them then. I wonder if they had engaged in underground barefist boxing cage matches if they’d be under the same scrutiny.
But I would’ve only drawn the line if they were portraying or using the university in any way. Maybe the pearl clutching could extend to if they were making porn while employed by the University, but still.
Yeah, this is one of those situations I have mixed feelings on. On the one hand, in a perfect world what consenting adults do on their own time wouldn’t change perceptions of their competency or leadership.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and executive leaders do carry the expectation to keep their private lives private, and if something is public it shouldn’t be controversial.
My two cents is that the guy was naive in thinking this wouldn’t undermines his executive role as leader of a campus. And naivety isn’t a great trait in a leader. But the president shouldn’t have made disparaging remarks about him and should simply have left it at a vague “differences in judgement.”
Ultimately, the only thing that may stand is the fact that the board of regents didn’t give him due process in handing down the decision. The announcement was made that the board was firing one of the Chancellors literally a couple hours before handing down the decision. There was no hearing by the board.
Ah, well good for them then. I wonder if they had engaged in underground barefist boxing cage matches if they’d be under the same scrutiny.
But I would’ve only drawn the line if they were portraying or using the university in any way. Maybe the pearl clutching could extend to if they were making porn while employed by the University, but still.
Thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.
Yeah, this is one of those situations I have mixed feelings on. On the one hand, in a perfect world what consenting adults do on their own time wouldn’t change perceptions of their competency or leadership.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and executive leaders do carry the expectation to keep their private lives private, and if something is public it shouldn’t be controversial.
My two cents is that the guy was naive in thinking this wouldn’t undermines his executive role as leader of a campus. And naivety isn’t a great trait in a leader. But the president shouldn’t have made disparaging remarks about him and should simply have left it at a vague “differences in judgement.”
Ultimately, the only thing that may stand is the fact that the board of regents didn’t give him due process in handing down the decision. The announcement was made that the board was firing one of the Chancellors literally a couple hours before handing down the decision. There was no hearing by the board.