Cavs show poor judgment with in-arena video featuring domestic violence

For this post I picked this article which demonstrates how a lapse in judgment can cause an enormous amount of controversy. On Wednesday night, the Cleveland Cavaliers played and beat the Chicago Bulls, however, during a break the Caaliers shows a comedy skit that was intended to be humorous spoof of a popular commercial but it turned out to be offensive because they incorporated content that made light of domestic violence. The video circulated the internet Thursday morning and the responses were not very positive. The video was quickly deletes, but of course that doesn’t mean it was gone. By Thursday afternoon, the Cavilers issued an apology, they state:

During a timeout at last night’s Cavaliers vs. Bulls playoff game at The Q in Cleveland, we ran a 1-minute in-arena video that was intended to be a humorous spoof on a popular commercial centered on a song and dance from the classic movie ‘Dirty Dancing.’ While the video was not intended to be offensive, it was a mistake to include content that made light of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a very serious matter and has no place in a parody video that plays in an entertainment venue. We sincerely apologize to those who have been affected by domestic violence for the obvious negative feelings caused by being exposed to this insensitive video.

The Cavaliers organization has a strong and lengthy track record of supporting domestic violence-related causes and efforts. We will continue to proudly work with our regional partners at the Domestic Violence & Child Advocacy Center in support of their numerous programs to end domestic violence in our country once and for all.

I would just like to know who’s idea it was and who actually approved this pitch and thought that this was a good idea to move it forward. Were these people not aware or did they simply didn’t care to stop and think about  that the issue of domestic violence is a serious issue in our society and sports in particular has had to deal with many cases. Now looking at the apology that was release I would say that overall the apology was okay, in the beginning the team do not take full responsibility they simply state, “it was a mistake to include content that made light of domestic violence” instead of saying we made the mistake; I don’t believe they are owning up to their mistake. The rest of the apology they use the word we. I believe that this entire thing could have been avoided if they had taken the time to really discuss the topic.


Professor Fails Entire College Class That ‘Disgusted’ Him

This was a very interesting article that I found last week and didn’t get a chance to blog about it. So Professor Irvin Horwitz who teaches at Texas A&M recently failed his strategic management class of 30 students. His reasoning was explained in an email that he sent out to all of his students he wrote,

“Since teaching this course, I have caught and seen cheating, been told to ‘chill out,’ ‘get out of my space,’ ‘go back and teach,’ [been] called a ‘f–king moron’ to my face, [had] one student cheat by signing in for another, one student not showing up but claiming they did, listened to many hurtful and untrue rumors about myself and others, been caught between fights between students.. None of you, in my opinion, given the behavior in this class, deserve to pass, or graduate to become an Aggie, as you do not in any way embody the honor that the university holds graduates should have within their personal character.”

Professor Horwitz decided to stop teaching this course and the administration has found a replacement until the end of the year, and the F that Professor Horwitz gave his students won’t be valid all students will receive a grade based on the work that they have completed.Patrick Louchouarn, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Chief Academic Officer at the Galveston Campus and associate provost of Texas A&M University, said that there is not investigation about the class wide cheating that Professor Horwitz mentioned.

Some of his colleagues are criticizing Professor Horwitz for his actions; some believe that he shouldn’t have walked away from his class and he should have set clear expectations and equal responsibilities among the professor and the students.

Was this ethical? Personally I think it is a very hard to manage a classroom I mean although college students are expected to be respectful, the truth is that they are surrounded with distractions and a professor has to constantly deal with those distractions. Everyone has a breaking point and for Professor Horwitz had his.

An Admissions Scandal Shows How Administrators’ Ethics ‘Fade’

Over the past 14 weeks in class we have discussed the gray area and this article addresses some of the reasons why some people decide to act unethical. Nathan F. Harris, a doctoral student in higher education at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, conducted a study on administrative misconduct. Harrison examined the 2009 Illinois admissions scandal; the University of Illinois has a hidden admissions process to ease the entry of applicants who were associated with politicians, donors, and other university officials. Harris states that misconduct, “originates, evolves and sustains itself as a result of a confluence of factors: common psychological tendencies, such as self-deception; environmental pressures, such as financial concerns. In addition, Harris also states that some administrators lose sight of ethical considerations, a phenomenon known as “ethical fading”. Finally the article discusses some of the findings as to why clout-based admissions process emerge and persist. There is certainly a lot of ethical fading going on at some institutions, but it will be interesting to see how other examples of administrative misconduct gets analyzed, I am sure that  psychologist and sociologist are also conducting such research and it will be interesting to learn what their findings are.

Should Colleges be Judging Rape?

In many of my classes we have discussed the role that a university plays in cases of sexual assault and whether or not they handle those cases in a proper manner. According to this article the mandates that the U.S. Education Department has imposed on universities for adjudicating sexual misconduct are unrealistic, and exceeds their legal authority. Currently there are more than 100 institutions under Federal investigation due to the way that they handled cases of sexual assault. Universities are getting complaints and lawsuits by victims of sexual assault who believe that their case was not handled promptly or fairly. On the other hand, some accused students who were found to be responsible and were suspended or expelled are also suing because of the lack of due process. Obviously, institutions need to reevaluate their protocols and procedures in order to insure that each case is handled promptly and fairly for both parties involved. The even bigger question is are colleges truly suited or equipped with determining if a student committed rape? If a college fails to respond to a report in a prompt and fair manner the U.S. Education Department may find that the institution violated the students rights under Title IX and if an institution is found responsible then in theory they could loose their federal founding. Dealing with sexual assault cases are extremely complex, I believe that colleges feel that they do have the obligation of keeping their students safe and ensuring that they have a safe learning environment. However, I also believe that in order to deal with these cases institutions need the staff, perhaps lawyers, investigators who are trained in dealing with these manners. Obviously that would mean funding for these positions, and how many universities are in the position to do that? This article goes into great detail into some cases and how some institutions have decided to deal with. This is a very serious and important topic that we must all be cognizant of.

North Charleston Mayor Announces All Officers Will Wear Body Cams

I don’t even know where to begin, I am at a loss for words because I truly can not comprehend why Officer Michael Slager decided to fatally shoot Walter Scott. A video that was recorded by a bystander shows that Walter Scott was not fighting with the police officer or in no way was he threatening his life. Michael Slager has now been arrested and has been charged with murder. However, it is interesting to see how the attorney for Slager stated that, “Slager felt threatened because Scott tried to overpower him and take his Taser” these comments were made before the video was released. That same attorney told the media on Tuesday that he was no longer involved in the case. What if that video didn’t exist? Would Slager still be arrested and charged with murder? Probably not! Because this video has been released he has now been fired and has been arrested and charged with murder; the video contradicts several parts of the original statement that Slager made. How are civilians suppose to trust law enforcement when tragedies like this happen and continue to happen?

Upon this tragedy the Mayor of North Charleston announced today that all police officers will have to wear body cams. However the bill hasn’t been passed yet. The bill was introduced back in December but has to be passed by the House in order for it to become law. Are body cams going to be useful? According to,” a report cited by White House’s Taskforce on 21st Century Policing found that the officers wearing cameras had 87.5 percent fewer incidents of use of force and 59 percent fewer complaints than the officers not wearing the cameras. (On the other hand, a recent Fusion investigation found that body cameras didn’t appear to reduce use of violence by police)”. I certainly have more questions than answers.

Indiana College Presidents Speak Out Against ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

The Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is causing national controversy and outrage; Gov. Mike Pence signed it into law last Thursday. This article addresses how university leaders, specifically university presidents in the state  are handling this new law. “Seven institutions in the state — Ball State, Butler, DePauw, Indiana, Purdue, and Valparaiso Universities and Hanover College — have issued statements promising to honor their nondiscrimination policies. Most, but not all, of the statements go on to condemn the law”. The decision to release a statement came about when many prospective students and parents expressed their concerns regarding this new law and they want to know where these universities stand. “University leaders had to make a decision: Do they speak out against the law? How do they strike a balance between protecting the free exchange of ideas on their campuses and promising to be inclusive?” It is obvious that university presidents have to be careful when speaking about political matters, or social issues. However, this law has caused many perspective students and faculty to reconsider whether or not they want to live in a state and go to an institution that might not be very welcoming. Although some university presidents have shied away from taking a strong stance on this issue, others have spoken out because they believe it is their responsibility to do so. Those institutions who have released statements have received positive reactions.

Texas middle school faces dilemma

Tilman Middle School is facing a dilemma this week. An eighth-grade student is accused of writing an 11-part story that details attacks on specific students, using knives, scissors, sexual assaults, and even a 7-Eleven Slurpee machine. The eighth grade student was reportedly removed from school weeks ago by his parents, but the student returned to school after spring break. His return  prompted protests by parents and students. The district released a statement stating that, “he was evaluated for two weeks and then released. However, the district can’t do much because the book wasn’t written on or using school property”. Bernard James, a professor of law and education-law expert at Pepperdine University explains in the article the gray area that exists when it comes to juveniles, criminal law and to what degree schools can act upon a threat. Professor James gives two examples of two separate school responding to threats and in both cases the school district was held responsible.

This article sparked by interest because I think it’s difficult to decide what to do in this situation, As a mother I completely understand why the parents are protesting; they want to know that their children are going to be safe at school. There has been numerous cases of school violence and unfortunately once a tragedy occurs it is too late, people want to find out why and wish they could have prevented it but it’s too late. Here we have a situation where this book was found before a tragedy occurred but what should happen to this student? This student obviously needs help, the students who he accuses of bullying him should also get help and see what led up to the creation of this book. I wonder, if this student stays at this school will the parents take their children out of school and transfer them to a different school? If this student gets the proper treatment or therapy and is monitored shouldn’t he be allowed to stay at the school? Or will he be harassed for his action even though he is getting help? Should the parents of this student remove him from the school? So many questions and I don’t have the answers.