Jon Schuetz's deleted facebook post found.
- Thread starter scottym800
- Start date
Yes. I think if they had uncovered this prior to the hiring, it certainly is a big enough reason to not hire him. Again, I'll state, if I'm someone on a job search and I openly bashed the CEO of that company on Facebook or Twitter that I would be taken out of consideration for that position. No doubt about it.
Again, the bigger offense is the fact that this wasn't caught before the hire. I do think however, in this case, even though it was caught after, it shouldn't be swept under the rug. They needed to let him go, even though they walk away with egg on their face (temporarily.)
Not very smart by Jon...but my guess is he probably never thought he would be looking for employment at NU.
He could have at least checked his grammar before posting it. That's reason enough to be dismissed.
I'd be curious to see a time stamp. Wouldn't be surprised if it was late and he was a few drinks in. That being said I don't know the guy and he might not even drink.He could have at least checked his grammar before posting it. That's reason enough to be dismissed.
That was the first thing that glared at me. Ex-journalist and throwing smack at the head of a university....you better at least spell correctly and use proper grammar, otherwise you lose!He could have at least checked his grammar before posting it. That's reason enough to be dismissed.
I can see this being a justifiable reason to let him go. You want to post things on social media, expect it to be used against you at some point. Plus the fact you are somehow, someway sticking up for Bo? Not a good position to hold in my book. Too bad....always liked the guy on KETV.
Except for the fact that part of his job at the time was to have an opinion on the happenings of NU football.
Except for the fact he was working for Edward Jones at the time.
fixed it for you. The guy is an idiot. HP extended SP's contract because public sentiment was riding high with a high national opinion and expectations heading in to that season for the football program. Public and financial support was up and then TO lost an election and the whole BC final season meltdown happened. Scheutz hit the fan you might say. IF you are in ANY type of public or business position like he was, you don't trash people on social media.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Let's say you are a law-douche and trash the administration endlessly. Would people believe you if you told them the University wanted you as its new president? I'm thinking only the super-slow thinkers would.
I'm surprised how good my new lure works.. I should patent it
All joking aside, I have no problems with what Jon said at that time. Basically what some of you all are saying is contextual, and I can use the same argument, at the time, in that context, to me it's no big deal. Clearly Jon is passionate about the program.
However, how the University handled this was pretty bad in several ways.
1. Obviously they should have done a better job reviewing his social media before offering him the job IF that was something they were truly concerned about.
2. Since #1 was not done, they could have:
It also tells me that at each opportunity to save face, or act professional, someone made a decision to take the childish route. And this is on something so simple and minuscule as hiring/firing a PA announcer.
It certainly begs the question of how other, more important matters, are run down there.
It is not the end of the world, but it's a temporary black eye for someone down there and how they handled this.
All joking aside, I have no problems with what Jon said at that time. Basically what some of you all are saying is contextual, and I can use the same argument, at the time, in that context, to me it's no big deal. Clearly Jon is passionate about the program.
However, how the University handled this was pretty bad in several ways.
1. Obviously they should have done a better job reviewing his social media before offering him the job IF that was something they were truly concerned about.
2. Since #1 was not done, they could have:
a) Not worried about something that was said in the past under a different context, at a different time. It shows an almost childlike response to reverse their position over the simplest and stupidest thing as a tweet. Honestly, this wouldn't have bothered me, and they didn't even need to bring this up. They could have just asked him to delete the post and moved forward instead of airing their dirty laundry.
b) Since they didn't take step a) above, they could have just asked Jon to resign, saying he had a conflict of interest. This keeps everyone looking good, and is the better way to handle it. Instead, they announce a 'firing' which not only makes the U look bad, but Jon as well.
So here we are, 3 mis-steps down the tree branch, and it does then beg the question of who was in charge or making these decisions, and at what maturity level is the leadership or oversight.b) Since they didn't take step a) above, they could have just asked Jon to resign, saying he had a conflict of interest. This keeps everyone looking good, and is the better way to handle it. Instead, they announce a 'firing' which not only makes the U look bad, but Jon as well.
It also tells me that at each opportunity to save face, or act professional, someone made a decision to take the childish route. And this is on something so simple and minuscule as hiring/firing a PA announcer.
It certainly begs the question of how other, more important matters, are run down there.
It is not the end of the world, but it's a temporary black eye for someone down there and how they handled this.
Regardless of who knew what when, this is what NU looks like right now....yes it will blow over fast (pun intended) but...yeah.
I'm surprised how good my new lure works.. I should patent it
All joking aside, I have no problems with what Jon said at that time. Basically what some of you all are saying is contextual, and I can use the same argument, at the time, in that context, to me it's no big deal. Clearly Jon is passionate about the program.
So you think that you'd keep your job if you made a critical comment about your boss, a high ranking public figure no less, on social media?
This might be my favorite facebook comment. Not just on this subject ... of all time:
"For anyone that mentions "Free Speech", just look in the mirror, point at that person looking back at you and say... "You're a MORON". Free Speech doesn't mean free from consequences. Like Colby said, Each of you should go into your employee handbook and read the "social media policy" and tell me just how "Free" you are."
"For anyone that mentions "Free Speech", just look in the mirror, point at that person looking back at you and say... "You're a MORON". Free Speech doesn't mean free from consequences. Like Colby said, Each of you should go into your employee handbook and read the "social media policy" and tell me just how "Free" you are."
A whole bunch of professors did after Harvey canceled the Ayers event. Shoot...even the University Senate was critical of his unilateral handling of this. This is a university not a business...big difference.
Your question implies that both:
- the critical comment was made while the person was employed by the company/institution
- and the PA Announcer's boss is the Chancellor of the University
Says the guy who thinks athletes should be paid their "fair market value" by the university
Still waiting on all the twitter links.
And since this isn't a business, no reason to pay student-athletes.
You did it again, open mouth insert foot.
Sorry...you can be the one to find the links. I'm not interested in getting people fired. You can find plenty of links talking about the faculty's criticism in the OWH and the Daily Nebraskan.
And, I didn't know that Jim Crow-type laws were OK if something were called a university. I know you may find this amazing but a university can actually value the freedom to speak one's mind and paying people what they are worth. It may be hard for you to understand, but universities can be crazy like that.
You don't have them, we all know this. Keep jumping from one thread to another with the same act...
Just when I think I've read it all from you, you drop this nugget. You are an entertainer.
I have to give credit where credit is due. That thought originated with Walter Byers, the 40 year president of the NCAA.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Other than to argue an extreme on a message board, I don't see a big deal in this guy being fired. I feel bad for the guy. But, he shouldn't be calling people a "disgrace" in social media, especially the top person in your next job.
Kids, life lesson here. Social media and the people on it "ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS". He may very well have thought afterwards "man that was stupid" but once its out there its out there. He and we have no idea what our future opportunities might hold and how what we say might affect those opportunities.
Well then, if Walter Byers said it, it makes perfect sense. Almost as powerful as when you dropped that Vince Lombardi line "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing," to substantiate your position that 9 wins is a must. Really powerful, thought-provoking stuff TT.
You might want to read what the 40 year president of the NCAA had to say in his book, Unsportsmanlike Conduct:Exploiting College Athletes. For some reason I tend to believe the guru who built the whole system rather than the message board gurus here. It has some big words in it...so be careful.
http://www.amazon.com/Unsportsmanlike-Conduct-Exploiting-College-Athletes/dp/0472084429
http://www.amazon.com/Unsportsmanlike-Conduct-Exploiting-College-Athletes/dp/0472084429
Neither of those things really gives Schuetz a pass either. If one makes a negative remark about an employer, whether a current or a potential employer, he opens up to the consequences of said comment. In Schuetz's case, the content of the comment and the timing apparently led the university to doubt its decision to hire a guy who has issues with the university's handling of the football program.
The issue still stands even though Perlman wouldn't have been Schuetz's direct supervisor. Schuetz had applied for a football-related and relatively visible position to Husker fans. Of course management is going to be a little leery of a guy who thinks a top manager is unaccountable for his actions. They don't want to hire someone who has a public platform and is at risk for criticizing the decision-making processes surrounding the football program.
Scheutz deleted the comment and the university was alerted right after the announcement but before any contract issues into play. If that comment was as benign and out-of-context as you claim, then why would Scheutz bother to delete the comment? He apparently thought his comment was harsh enough to be taken seriously by the university.
My bad. I don't live in the area and thought his leaving KETV was a very recent event (post-post).
Tom, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone's intelligence.
It's a message board. If you can't take it...why did you start giving it? Get back to me when you read the Byer's book.
I can take it, which has nothing to do with it. Certain people are in a position to be insulting, and you aren't one of them. Got it now? I don't need to read the book to know that the statement that you borrowed is ridiculous. The problem is, I am 100% certain that explaining it to you would be futile, because nothing gets through.