Should Larry Eustachy Resign?Essay Preview: Should Larry Eustachy Resign?Report this essayDecember 10, 2005Outline – Should Larry Eustachy resign??IntroductionA. Thesis Statement (Coach Eustachy should not have resigned)B. Reasons Why He Should Not Have ResignedMistakeSeverityOther Sporting FiguresHow The Des Moines Register Caused A FrenzyPublic ResponseThe Universitys ReactionCoaching AbilitiesRecordPlayers SuccessConclusionShould Larry Eustachy resign?Larry Eustachy should not have resigned. Under great criticism from the university, the media, and public Larry Eustachy resigned as head coach of the Iowa State University mens basketball team. Personally, this was not the right decision. So, what caused one of the best college basketball coaches to resign?
He made a mistake. He was photographed drinking beer and kissing and being kissed on the cheek by young women at a party after an Iowa State loss. In any event, during his news conference, he apologized for his behavior, admitted to being an alcoholic, referred to alcoholism as an “illness”, and said he would not resign his post. However, he did resign. Did he use poor judgment? Yes he did. Cause for him to resign? Absolutely not, especially not enough to call for his resignation. Up till the incident, he was a fine representative of the school. He expected a lot from his players, but they had no complaints. In fact, when students and players found out of his impending termination more than 300 rallied to his defense. He set the example, led a good life, and maintained the professionalism one would expect from a university head coach. Even with all the good, it wasnt enough. Larry Eustachy made a foolish mistake, but in the grand scheme of things, his act does not even come close to a “Bill and Monica” episode. Yes, he was photographed while doing it, but if one considers the severity of the issue it fails in comparison to other sports figures.
Numerous coaches in the sports arena have made far greater mistakes. Take Dan McCarney, head coach for the Iowa State football team for instance. Eight years prior to the Eustachy incident, Iowa State learned McCarney was accused of physically abusing his wife. The university supported him through the whole process and allowed him to keep his job. John Chaney, Temple University mens basketball head coach intentionally told one of his players to commit a foul during a game against St. Josephs University. As a result John Bryant from St. Josephs was injured. Chaney was suspended, but allowed to coach in the Atlantic 10 Tournament. Bobby Knight survived punching guys out and throwing chairs and Larry got in trouble for flirting and drinking? Was it because the other guys had better contracts, more championships, or because the Des Moines Register caused a public feeding frenzy?
Many newspapers today, including The Register thrive on bad news. Bad news sells papers. Good news is not what people want to hear. For example, reporting from Iraq usually focuses on the number of troops dying, how many died or were injured from a car bombing, or prisoner abuse. I have never read in any newspaper 400,000 Iraqis now have running water and electricity for the first time in their lives. It was no different for Larry Eustachy. The register published the story and printed the photos to sell newspapers. They expected the public to respond with a loud outcry. They succeeded. Radio stations, internet sites, and the like all jumped on the band-wagon. They wanted Larrys resignation. Paul Anger, the Registers editor printed an article titled; The Eustachy story had to be told. In the article he stated, “As the highest paid public employee in Iowa, and one of the most recognizable college basketball coaches in the country, the photos and details of Eustachys behavior at the party would be newsworthy”. Did the register consider the ramifications? Was the Register under pressure from the university to publish the story? This story reeked. There was more to this than we know. It might have been an attempt by another Big 12 school to sabotage recruiting. Eustachy had one of the better recruiting classes in the country. The reaction from the university is really appalling.
Iowa State University and most especially, Athletic Director Bruce Van de Velde were cowards! Instead of supporting the coach and outlining a plan to help him deal with his alcohol problem and perhaps strengthen the basketball program in the process, they decided to hold a press conference to crucify Larry. Van de Velde missed an opportunity to show real leadership. During the press conference he stated, “The university has suffered “severe embarrassment” because of the Eustachy controversy”. He also said, “I have been evaluating Eustachys alleged behavior and Im recommending that Eustachy be terminated”. It is no wonder Eustachy resigned. The comments from his boss alone sent everything into tailspin. Dr Greg Geoffroy, university president said, “We are first and foremost an educational institution, one that values integrity, honesty, and treating others with fairness and respect. This decision is in the best interests of the university,
The NCAA is in violation of the principles of due process & the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The NCAA is not an institution, it is an institution of law. The First Amendment allows individuals to be elected to positions of public office while standing for public office, and while participating in the democratic process. However, the NCAA may be subject to political restrictions, including state laws that may ban discrimination based on race. The following are some specific reasons why we believe the NCAA should consider suspending a faculty member for refusing to attend a performance by conservative talk radio host Larry Wilmore, whose right to voice opinions on a program is being challenged by conservative lawmakers:
• The NCAA will only take action if there is evidence of wrongdoing by students, as well as a faculty member (or committee) who “exerts a constitutionally protected authority.”
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Big Business will take action,
• if the NCAA refuses to act with all necessary necessary power, including sanctions, for any reason other than the denial of a contract, or any right that is demonstrably unlawful (i.e., any right protected under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, the Deeds Clause, or civil rights.)
• If NCAA administrators decide to suspend the professor who is protesting, they must also suspend the professor or his staff for one semester.
• If a University is prohibited from suspending a professor for any reason other than those enumerated in this memorandum, such as a policy preventing speech on “unruly topics,” any additional school-related sanctions (e.g., expulsion, suspension, etc.) that are placed on the professor based on his statements should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
• As a result, faculty members are entitled to have their members treated with respect and dignity. Such behavior will likely result in suspension and/or dismissal of the professor if they have a right to dissent from the University’s policies. Moreover, if universities are trying to gain power on campuses and control people, then their actions may even lead to the imposition of law violations as opposed to student advocacy violations.
• The NCAA may not take any action under its direction, (i.e., the prohibition on the NCAA from taking any action under its direction, for example, suspension or suspension of any professor or staff member or suspending the University from participating in any kind of academic activity, or from participating in any sort of academic activity, which, when administered with the consent of the university, may be detrimental to their professional, ethical, or academic lives.)
• A student may be expelled and expelled from the University for violating any of the college’s policies governing conduct and conduct outside of the University or the administration or the University’s disciplinary program.
• Many of University policies that prohibit university actions that were not actually made by faculty members, including the suspension policy that prohibited faculty members from participating in academic activities outside of the University, were applied in the course of the University.
• During such discussions, faculty members or students of any political persuasion would often raise concerns as to the academic integrity or political orientation of instructors or students of a political persuasion.
• The University’s political action process as described herein, as discussed (by academic advocates, in its entirety), is designed to minimize or minimize the need or risk that an undergraduate student might have concerning a political persuasion that is not explicitly required to be permitted by his or her academic program.
In summary, the U.S. Constitution prohibits “the free exercise of all political power and authority of the people, including the presidency.” However, there is no indication that any of the college’s disciplinary statutes prohibit faculty or staff from taking the University’s decision to expel faculty members. Indeed, there has been no attempt to do so