Rumored Violations

[luckathe1]

You literally cannot make a rule for every possible contingency, and you cannot draw a line precise enough to account for every possible degree. If you're doling out punishments you have to be as fair as you can, and it is hard to be fair to everyone and simple at the same time.

So, they make up the rule as they go along?

 

[Cackalacky]

So, they make up the rule as they go along?

Rules are subject to interpretation. It's that simple. I am sorry you seem unable to see the nuance here.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So, they make up the rule as they go along?

Yes, effectively. That is the way the world works. Otherwise they would have decided all the rules a thousand years ago and we would have no need to ever change them. Instead, we change and amend and interpret rules based on our experiences and understandings. The Constitution, for example, isn't a bunch of rules. It is a framework for how we will "make up the rules as we go along."

 

[luckathe1]

Rules are subject to interpretation. It's that simple. I am sorry you seem unable to see the nuance here.

OK, so according to you,
Rules are subject to interpretation. Or are nuanced = undecipherable and subjective
no matter its bed time and tomorrow is a big day. FUCK Michigan! Go Irish!
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ulukinatme]

So, they make up the rule as they go along?

 

[Cackalacky]

OK, so according to you,
Rules are subject to interpretation. Or are nuanced = undecipherable and subjective
no matter its bed time and tomorrow is a big day. FUCK Michigan! Go Irish!
Thanks for the discussion.

Haha. Yeah. I am real big on subjectivity. Nuanced does not equal indecipherable. In fact nuance makes the framework viable, elastic and strong.

Go Irish.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Im a 2 time high school drop out and there are just to many big words being tossed around. Keep Calm And Fuck Michigan

 

[dshans]

Is this a good time and place to begin a discussion on the pros and cons of Situational Ethics?

 

[OCIrish]

Is this a good time and place to begin a discussion on the pros and cons of Situational Ethics?

No......wait, yeah.











Maybe, hell I don't really know.

 

[NDJimmy]

We are confronted with ethics every day. Always aim high.
I believe ND does.

 

[palinurus]

Yes, effectively. That is the way the world works. Otherwise they would have decided all the rules a thousand years ago and we would have no need to ever change them. Instead, we change and amend and interpret rules based on our experiences and understandings. The Constitution, for example, isn't a bunch of rules. It is a framework for how we will "make up the rules as we go along."

Not to butt in, but, as in this case, yes and no.

Sure, everything can be challenged; the system allows for it. But some things are "blacker" and "whiter" than others.

The president being able to serve just two terms, to use an example, is pretty clear; the limits of executive power are less clear, yet some presidential actions are pretty clearly over the line or within his purview: he can't change the voting age to 25, and he sure can appoint a Secretary of Defense.

My only point being, the rules may be clear and established, but they may not be; depends how they drew them up. But, just as in the case of a president (or Congress, or court), it's going to change the product delivered to the student and the school if the student involved looks at the rules as something to be respected, or something to be gotten around.

Anyway, an interesting discussion.

 

[Irish8248]

Is this a good time and place to begin a discussion on the pros and cons of Situational Ethics?

 

[BobD]

To me, at this point those kids are gone and that's too bad. Now whenever the hell Notre Dame pulls their head out of their ass and gets around to making a fucking decision, if we get one, some or all of them back, it'll be a bonus.

 

[Irish Insanity]

We should lock down this thread, just for today. It's taking away from #FuckMichigan

 

[greyhammer90]

At this point who gives a sh*t? It's F*ck Michigan day.

 

[BGIF]

Yes, effectively. That is the way the world works. Otherwise they would have decided all the rules a thousand years ago and we would have no need to ever change them. Instead, we change and amend and interpret rules based on our experiences and understandings. The Constitution, for example, isn't a bunch of rules. It is a framework for how we will "make up the rules as we go along."

Not to butt in, but, as in this case, yes and no.

Sure, everything can be challenged; the system allows for it. But some things are "blacker" and "whiter" than others.

The president being able to serve just two terms, to use an example, is pretty clear; the limits of executive power are less clear, yet some presidential actions are pretty clearly over the line or within his purview: he can't change the voting age to 25, and he sure can appoint a Secretary of Defense.

My only point being, the rules may be clear and established, but they may not be; depends how they drew them up. But, just as in the case of a president (or Congress, or court), it's going to change the product delivered to the student and the school if the student involved looks at the rules as something to be respected, or something to be gotten around.

Anyway, an interesting discussion.

I believe Presidential Term Limits makes Rhode's point of "framework". Washington choose not to run again after two terms and set a precedent that became tradition. FDR broke that tradition by re-running until he died. But FDR did not break the law as the Constitution was mute on the subject. The 22nd Amendment was then promulgated, passed by Congress, and ratified by the States making it a black and white part of the Constitution in accordance with the process set up in the Costitution.

Most of the Amendments aren't black and white and have been parsed, and reparsed, and will be reparsed again in future generations. As will the subject of Academic Integrity. Honor Code Rules and Honor Code Committees form the framework and try as they may the rules and the ruling process aren't black and white.

In 1951, West Point took 4 months to render judgement at a place that is largely black and white. ND hasn't taken 4 weeks but sports fans are screaming like an angry, irrational mob.

The strength of an opponent, be they playoff caliber or cupcake, on this week's sports schedule, isn't part of an academic integrity process, if it has integrity.



WE ARE ND

GO IRISH!

 

[magogian]

So, they make up the rule as they go along?

Welcome to the administrative state.

 

[johnnycando]

BGIF, and board members:

Do you think, that this process, has been consistent with "integrity?"

I will if all players are guilty.

Otherwise if some or all are innocent (or as a poster stated, "not guilty or not proven guilty"), this drawn out process was cruel and unjust.

 

[Irish8248]

We should lock down this thread, just for today. It's taking away from #FuckMichigan

This! This thread has kind of ruined Michigan week

 

[scUM Hater]

I got a rumor that is true and from a inside trusted source:

F**K MICHIGAN! !!!

 

[IrishinTN]

Screw Michigan!! I hate them more than any team in all the land. And as far as this series goes...

 

[palinurus]

I believe Presidential Term Limits makes Rhode's point of "framework". Washington choose not to run again after two terms and set a precedent that became tradition. FDR broke that tradition by re-running until he died. But FDR did not break the law as the Constitution was mute on the subject. The 22nd Amendment was then promulgated, passed by Congress, and ratified by the States making it a black and white part of the Constitution in accordance with the process set up in the Costitution.

Most of the Amendments aren't black and white and have been parsed, and reparsed, and will be reparsed again in future generations. As will the subject of Academic Integrity. Honor Code Rules and Honor Code Committees form the framework and try as they may the rules and the ruling process aren't black and white.

In 1951, West Point took 4 months to render judgement at a place that is largely black and white. ND hasn't taken 4 weeks but sports fans are screaming like an angry, irrational mob.

The strength of an opponent, be they playoff caliber or cupcake, on this week's sports schedule, isn't part of an academic integrity process, if it has integrity.



WE ARE ND

GO IRISH!

I think I essentially agree with your big point. I am probably conflating the Honor Code with the specific rules a college might have for a given course or school.

To the point of specificity, I think you want some rules (whether academic or constitutional) to cover the changes that occur; but if they are so elastic that black becomes white, then there is a problem. Old example, we want the First Amendment to cover radio speech, even if the Founders didn't contemplate the radio. We very reasonably may not think the First Amendment applies to your right to smear crap in silence on the White House front door.

To your point on presidential terms, no, my example doesn't prove Rhode's point; your good exposition of the history proves mine. My point wasn't that the 22nd Amendment didn't stem from confusion or dispute; I admit that these can stem from lack of specificty in the Constitution. My point, though, was that the 22nd is clear, so some provisions are. There are black and white constitutional provisions. Age of candidates. Number of senators per state. That there must be advise and consent of Senate (what that means is disputed, but that there must be it, isn't).

Likewise, you can have black and white rules in the academic sphere. No calculators to a math exam. No direct quotes with attribution. If your QPA is under 2.0, you don't play. I don't think we disagree; just making the point that you may well want very specific, black and white rules in your application of broad principles. Again, people can challenge anything, but it doesn't mean the rule isn't sometimes clear. Not that all rules are unclear.

But, again, I agree with your big point. I may have questions about the process here (and as somebody said, once we know the findings, maybe the "delay" issue won't be a delay at all), but this is important and needs to be treated seriously. I've argued, way back many pages ago, for such a Code, including the non-toleration provision. I think the Code is essential to academic integrity, and think the kids that will fit best at ND, and parents of such kids, mostly agree.

 

[Cali_domer]

So no news I assume

 

[BGIF]

BGIF, and board members:

Do you think, that this process, has been consistent with "integrity?"

I will if all players are guilty.

Otherwise if some or all are innocent (or as a poster stated, "not guilty or not proven guilty"), this drawn out process was cruel and unjust.

Fr. Jenkins stressed integrity. All the principals, students and faculty, report to him. He set the tone.

None of us here, nor big buck donors, have seen the evidence of infraction much less know which infraction was suspect, aside from the broad term of academic misconduct..

None of us know the actual charges, nor heard any testimony, nor even know the actual schedule for the process, much less when any alleged infractions took place despite asserting that their rumors and their interpretation of rules they didn't read, and their interpretation of a process that is confidential are absolute fact.


Why do all the players have to guilty for the process to have integrity, johnny?

Most of the posts in this thread address players, supposedly there are non-athletes involved. What about them? This is a STUDENT issue. The outcome may impact sports but I believe Jenkins is primarily concerned with the student impact. This isn't Auburn or OSU. Unlike Gee, I didn't hear Jenkins joking about the coach firing him.


How is this a drawn out process?

West Point took 4 MONTHS to determine:

Did you have advance knowledge of test questions or answers?

Did you violate your sworn code of honor?

At West Point the only responses were Yes or No.

ND has NOT taken 4 WEEKS for an incident that surfaced at the end of SUMMER school not during a regular semester when all the students, faculty, and administrative personnel are in residence and committee like an honor panel normally function.

duLac infractions, like alcohol issues, take weeks to months for resolution during the normal school year. This issue doesn't invoke one person. There are more people, more issues, and not such clarity as a basketball player swiping his roommates credit card.

It's also impacted by the NCAA eligibility consideration. IF a student athlete was found guilty the student will face ND sanctions but if that student's GPA was adjusted downward for a failed course OR COURSES rendering him academically ineligible. ND COULD face sanctions.

An teacher/instructor/professor say something that raised the alarm. The departments for the coursework in question, the colleges for the degree impacted, General Counsel, NCAA Compliance Office, and the University Administration are all involved. Due process isn't Tressel or Paterno doing the investigation, rendering judgement, and sweeping it under the rug.


And how is this "cruel and unjust" punishment?

Apparently I missed Amnesty International's investigative expose on ND's use of thumb screws, waterboarding, and beheadings.

To my knowledge no punishment has been rendered as no judgement has been rendered. No student was expelled nor suspended. No student athlete was suspended nor thrown off the team. They being WITHHELD from competition because of compliance matters not as punishment. That's S.O.P today ... and prudent.


Our frustration as sports fans doesn't make Jenkins and UND, Nazis or Stazi as some twits have posted. In my lifetime going back to Leahy's era, I can't think of any ND president that has done more for the football program than Jenkins.

I challenge any poster here to name the an ND president that has and list what he did.

 

[BGIF]

Palinsurus,

I think you and Rhodes and I are more in agreement here than we are on many topics ranging from play calling to the mundane.

I've got to go run some errands. I'll revisit later.


GO IRISH!

 

[wizards8507]

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Bogtrotter07]

That's actually a great quote.

This cracks me up. I have heard that same quote if fewer words since the late '70's and early '80's. It was a mantra of est and Werner Erhard. He may have borrowed it from Adolus Huxley. Which was quoted by Jim Morrison et all (Doors.) So the concept was in the lexicon before Rumsfeld and the gang cut their teeth with Nixon.

What is most interesting, beside the confusing fact of the layout of Rumsfeld's comment is the fact that his statement is routinely criticized, for what the Bush Administration is accused by its detractors; that fourth group is the unknown known!

The whole reason for bringing this up is Brian Kelly. In his philosophy there are four levels starting with unconscious incompetence, then conscious competence (which is a good representation of the unknown known), then conscious competence, followed by unconscious incompetence! This is the functional instruction to deal with states mearly described by others!

Just to end this distraction with a little Forum :

Man keeps looking for a truth that fits his reality. Given our reality, the truth doesn't fit. If you experience it, it's the truth. The same thing believed is a lie. In life, understanding is the booby prize.

Werner Erhard

 

[BGIF]

This cracks me up. I have heard that same quote if fewer words since the late '70's and early '80's. It was a mantra of est and Werner Erhard. He may have borrowed it from Adolus Huxley. Which was quoted by Jim Morrison et all (Doors.) So the concept was in the lexicon before Rumsfeld and the gang cut their teeth with Nixon.

...

Just to end this distraction with a little Forum :

So Rumsfeld didn't attribute!

HONOR COMMITTEE!

We're gonna have to vacate the Iraq War!


oh, Obama did that already.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

So Rumsfeld didn't attribute!

HONOR COMMITTEE!

We're gonna have to vacate the Iraq War!


oh, Obama did that already.

EXACTLY!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XzrJwzYBUkU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Brilliant, reps, good sir!

Obama followed "precedence" of his predecessor!

Or maybe it is the precedence of us, the American electorate, insisting on electing one bumbling idiot after another!

 

[johnnycando]

I like boobies.