Allowing a life skills position, but volunteer only. I dont see why we cant have one that is paid by the GridIron Club or someone. I know he has to respect the douches on his faculty, but does anyone really care about what they think?!? If they dont like it, ISU can find another prof. to work their 12 hours a week on an inflated salary.
Geoffrey taking easy way out.
- Thread starter ripvdub
- Start date
In the past the chaplain was a volunteer and made his living from the church he was afilliated with.
Why can't the new chaplain be paid a salary to open his paycheck, and volunteer the other 40 hours a week to the football team?
I'm really disappointed in that decision. These nuts are counting on the fact that colleges, companies and corporations will do anything just to keep themselves out of the news in any controversial situation. And it works.
You do realize that professors at a research institution such as Iowa State work WAY more than 12 hours, don't you? Any professor that doesn't have tenure can be fired for not doing enough research and publication at ISU, as it's in their contracts. I also don't think being a specialist in their field, and working as hard as they do, either research or education, deserves a claim that they have an "inflated salary." That title is reserved for CEOs and company presidents, IMO.
I actually agree and respect Geoffrey's approach, as I don't think the position is "necessary," and the volunteer basis has worked fine for years already. A lawsuit against the University wouldn't exactly be a shining moment. Alright, it's beneficial for the atheletes allowed access to this resource, but why the preferential treatment? I work a full-time job and take 18 credit hours a semester, where's my full-time "life skills advisor"?
You guys are missing the context here...this "life skills assistant" can still be paid by private funds (aka the Gridiron Club). But can't be a paid employee of the University. The GC is a separate private entity and nothing can stop them from raising money for this individual. So...it may sound like a convoluted story coming from the mouth of Geoffrey, but that is merely to quiet the opposition. Jamie and Gene got what they wanted.
Sounds like the most intelligent decision he could make. Putting a religious position on the University payroll would be a much bigger problem legally than having they guy "volunteer."
On a side note, I did not know that the Gridiron Club was a private entity. I do hope they don't try to hide the fact that they are the ones funding this so that donors can make an educated decision about where their money goes. I know my money (that seems like an oxymoron) won't be going to the Gridiron Club.
Edit: Additionally, as some have already pointed out, Chizik and JP are getting exactly what they wanted. There is only a cosmetic name change and a change in how his pay is funneled. Neither of these will affect his interactions with the team.
On a side note, I did not know that the Gridiron Club was a private entity. I do hope they don't try to hide the fact that they are the ones funding this so that donors can make an educated decision about where their money goes. I know my money (that seems like an oxymoron) won't be going to the Gridiron Club.
Edit: Additionally, as some have already pointed out, Chizik and JP are getting exactly what they wanted. There is only a cosmetic name change and a change in how his pay is funneled. Neither of these will affect his interactions with the team.
Last edited:
I don't see it as taking the easy way out. I view it as a compromise in an attempt to appease both sides.
For the exact reason that Pollard already stated: to hold that position accountable and ensure that something acceptable does not become something unacceptable.
Yeah and while we're at it, why should they get a "strength and conditioning coach" when I don't? I want to get stronger too, why should I be denied that? Also, I would like to be able to attend a study table with the team and be able to eat at the training table. That all sounds like "preferential treatment" too if we're going to gripe about having a "life skills advisor".:rolleyes5cz:
If the point isn't to evangelize then what's the problem if the person is called a "life skills advisor"?
Everything is still the same....just the title was changed. Still a full time position funded by the FCA and "volunteered" out to the football team. JP and GC got what they wanted...
I know you were just being facetious, but you did make an interesting point. Regular students have tons of academic assistance available to them, but there isn't anyone like a strength and conditioning trainer that can be used as a resource. You can hire a personal trainer at the rec, but that's something you have to pay for (and I don't think it's dirt-cheap, either). I don't want a trainer hovering over me every minute of my workout, but I *do* want someone more knowledgeable than I am that I can ask questions or have check my technique. (Yeah, I could look up weightlifting technique online, but my computer and the rec are not terribly close together.) Actually, I think I'm going to write to Rec Services about that...
When I reread what I wrote above, I realized that this is probably analogous to at least some of the student-athlete's feelings about a an advisor. They might not want someone by their side at all times, but would like someone easily available in their facility when they have questions or need advice. I was never opposed to this idea in the first place, but I think I understand it a lot better looking at it from this angle.
People are letting their emotions get in the way of this whole process. GG impresses me more and more. It is the job of the Athletics Council to advise The Prez on matters related to intercollegiate athletics, and to bring the view of the greater university community to decisions concerning athletics at the University. That is exactly what they were tasked to do and did. The Council reviewed the issue at hand and advised GG as an entity representing our University. The council is made up of faculty/staff throughout the University.
Exactly right, nothing is different. There's a p.c. name now (I prefer they stick with "chaplain") and the ground rules are laid out, public and clear - but that's all. Who and what this person is, is the same and the funding is the same from what I can gather.
I think what's also the same is Prof Avalos and his crew won't sit idly either.
Last edited:
Prof Avalos won't have standing to challenge this (I think). They would need a football player who believes the chaplian scheme violates his Constitutional rights.